Sunday, July 29, 2007
|
|
Musharraf Widens The War
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
11:20 AM
|
The Taliban/al Qaeda have had a sanctuary since 2002 in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. That may be ending according to an article in the Times of London (HT: Powerline):
Last week soldiers sealed all the roads into Miran Shah, the provincial capital, occupied the hills around it and fired the first artillery salvo in what Musharraf’s many critics have called a war on his own people.
On Friday morning the army moved into parts of Miran Shah itself after militants blew up government buildings overnight. Most of the 60,000 townspeople are feared trapped, but hundreds of families have fled their mud homes in villages nearby and headed east for the sanctuary of Bannu, a town in the neighbouring North West Frontier province.
I watched last week as some of the 80,000 troops deployed in Waziristan dug in alongside the highway outside Mirali, a small town 10 miles east of Miran Shah. Almost all the checkpoints on this stretch of narrow road were empty. Three lay in rubble because the militants had blown them up. No troops drove along the road. They shuttled to the nearby Afghan border by helicopter.
I have to agree with John Hinderaker's reaction: "It's always hard to evaluate these reports; we've heard similar things before. But if Musharraf is serious about going after the extremists hiding in Waziristan, it can only be a good thing."
I asked Tony Snow about Musharaff's efforts last week:
HH: Are you confident of the Musharraf regime’s stability? Or is there reason for us to start worrying about that regime going south?
TS: No, I’m not going to sit around and speculate about stability. Come on, Hugh. But I think what you can see is that the Musharraf government realizes that there is a concerted threat not merely at the Red Mosque, but there have been acts of violence throughout Pakistan. And what’s he doing? He’s doing a surge. There are a hundred thousand or so troops now on the border, and they’re going and they’re fighting hard. They’re not only taking casualties, but dishing out casualties.
HH: So you’re comfortable, you think the Bush administration believes that Pakistan is doing what it has to do?
TS: Well, look, I’m not going to try to give you a global view of…could they do more? Do they need to hit a different target? They’re doing what they need to do in terms of taking the fight to the enemy. And what we’ve said is you need some help, we’re there to help you.
If Musharraf has realized that Pakistan can't continue on half modern and half medieval, that will be a very good thing. Tony won't comment on the regime's stability, but it cannot be great if it is forced to allow a large swath of its land to be governed by the Taliban.
I am surprised we don't ever see Iran offer the proximity of a nuclear state imperiled by a radical Sunni insurgency as the rationale for its nuclear program. A Taliban Pakistan with nukes is a nightmare as great as a Mullah-led Iran with nukes. (For more on Iran's ambitions and stability, see last week's interview with Michael Rubin).
|
|
|
I commend Pak. if they are not prevaricating. I do not fear their nukes, but perhaps India should. Or , I hope, that China does! But, I am more concerned about the Saudis. Their madrasses and Wahabi malarky is still being funded world-wide and especially in the USA. They are not doing their best to chase Al Q or any other terrorist groupings out of the ME and with W giving them 20Billion in aid, I fear they will simply play the game while these education units poison anyone Muslim pupil who is affected by that drivel. Perhaps they will even learn, however, that Islam IS NOT PEACE. LOL |
|
soccor" crowd is not waiting for the fat lady to sing.
The PAKS have been "whooped", Iraq PM has "no attentetion (sic) of sharing power", a "clash of personality" for alliances that rub the Iraq PM and his sect the wrong way.
Cassandra is a piker compaired to todays leftist. Just as history forgets the "nattering nabobs of negativism", leaders that prepare for failure get what they prepare for
Which is the better saying: 1. Every silver lining has a cloud. 2. Better red than dead.
"a nuked up Pakistan, under radical sunni control, is immensely dangerous, and provides a rationale for the shiite regime in Iran."
"Is there a reason why our leadership thought that Saddam constituted a graver threat than this?!"
If we are going to attack nuclear power that may be taken over by muslum terrorists, then the UK is a stones throw away. They have capitulated to muslums in the past, are doings so now and will in the future.
For those on the left who have advocated political dialog, nonagression and not interfering in civil wars, your complaints about what is happening in Pakistan now ring hollow. They just show how quickly the left forgets their own positions.
|
|
Hugh is right--a nuked up Pakistan, under radical sunni control, is immensely dangerous, and provides a rationale for the shiite regime in Iran.
Is there a reason why our leadership thought that Saddam constituted a graver threat than this?! |
|
Is it not clear now that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s has no attentions of sharing power with the Sunnis? Do we have any choice but to recognize each group separately and stop pushing a strong federal government?
AP-A key aide says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s relations with Gen. David Petraeus are so poor the Iraqi leader may ask Washington to withdraw the overall U.S. commander from his Baghdad post.
Iraq’s foreign minister calls the relationship “difficult.” Petraeus, who says their ties are “very good,” acknowledges expressing his “full range of emotions” at times with al-Maliki. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who meets with both at least weekly, concedes “sometimes there are sporty exchanges.”
It seems less a clash of personality than of policy. The Shiite Muslim prime minister has reacted most sharply to the American general’s tactic of enlisting Sunni militants, presumably including past killers of Iraqi Shiites, as allies in the fight against al-Qaida here.
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/heat-rises-between-iraq-pm-and-petraeus
|
|
unfortunately we have heard this before.
Musharaff is in a tough position. Imagine if George Bush could have his military decisions changed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. That and Pelosi and Reid were trying to litterally kill him too.
Plus every time Musharaff has sent troops into the tribal areas, they have been whooped.
That is the situation facing Musharaff. I hope our assistance can turn the situation for him. |
|
to unbelievers, according to the Quran, how can we be certain of which side ANY of them are on--other than by their actions?
|
|
|
|