Is the United States still looking for this man?
More than six years after the 9/11 attacks, the United States still does not have a coherent plan to destroy a key staging area for terrorist attacks into the country, according to an independent government watchdog.
Still, the administration's answer to this "clear and present danger" is to send more aid to Musharraf and trust that he will take care of our problem for us. We are still farming out the battle to Muslim generals who in spite of the diplomatic rhetoric and posturing clearly do not have our best interests at heart.
The strategy is at odds with the Bush doctrine of preemption. The head of the CIA has now verified that at least a remote part of Pakistan -- essentially a break-away Islamic province -- is harboring America's Enemy No. 1 and presenting a direct and urgent threat to the homeland.
Instead of carpet-bombing the terror camps and safe houses there (as opposed to the occasional drone-fired missile), we're playing a dangerous game of wait-and-see. If we have intelligence specific enough to know the type of terrorists al-Qaida's training along the Pakistan border, why aren't we acting on it?
This GAO report may be the most damning condemnation of the Bush administration's counter-terrorism efforts. The report goes on to say that the Bush administration has failed to develop any plan to address the Al Qaeda threat. Worse, the report finds that Al-Qaeda is now able to attack the United States and represents the "most serious" threat to this country.
The report's opinion of the Bush administration efforts speaks for itself. Not only have we not met our goals but we have no plan to meet our goals. Al-Qaeda can now attack the United States. Al Qaeda in Pakistan is the most serious threat. Al-Qaeda is using the Pakistan tribal areas to put the finishing touches on its plans to attack the United States.
It is really not a good thing to have incompetent people running this country.
Prince Harry returns from battle.
Prince Harry has returned to Great Britain from Afghanistan, where he was deployed with fellow soldiers as part of the NATO mission to stabilize that country and defeat Taliban guerillas.
The chicken-hawk argument is nakedly partisan. During the Kosovo war waged by Bill Clinton and supported by Democrats in 1999, a cry didn’t go up from the Left that no one could support the war unless they were willing to strap themselves into B-2 bombers for the 33-hour ride from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to Belgrade and back to degrade Serbian infrastructure.
By the same token, we could say to proponents of leaving Saddam Hussein in power: “That’s an illegitimate position unless you yourself are willing to move to Tikrit to live for the duration of Saddam’s regime.” Or to supporters of “containing” Saddam: “You’re a hypocrite until you go help patrol the no-fly zone.” Or to advocates of inspections: “You can’t support them unless you don a baby-blue cap and sniff around his suspected chemical-weapons sites yourself.”
Noblesse oblige literally translates to “nobility obligates.” It implies that with wealth, power and prestige come social responsibilities; it is a moral obligation to act with honor, kindliness and generosity.
For citizens of America, true noblesse oblige has nothing to do with high birth, power or prestige. True noblesse oblige is a responsibility for all of us who have been given the benefits of living in a free land, founded on the highest principles. If we, as a country, miss the mark, it is no reflection on the founding principles. It means we have the responsibility to use our energies and intelligence to return to basics and fix it.
We do not need to be wealthy, or powerful, or president to be a hero. We merely need to act, with honor, and with a loving and ethical heart.
Pervez Musharraf, a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism, is out.
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's party took a thumping at the polls Tuesday, while the party of the slain ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto won a plurality of votes. The really good news: Most Islamist political parties were trounced, too.
The result: Musharraf is out, and a new "moderate" coalition government will likely form. But how just "moderate" is the new government going to be? Will it be a useful American ally in the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban? And what will Pakistan's army do?
No matter who is president of Pakistan, the question of what to do about al Qaeda and other extremist groups will remain. Al Qaeda made repeated, but unsuccessful, attempts to murder President Musharraf. It succeeded in murdering Benazir Bhutto. One hopes that her party will be at least as committed to defeating the terrorists as was Musharraf.
When your policy involves relying exclusively on one increasingly unpopular leader, and that leader is demolished in an election, it tends to open "a host of new challenges." All the more so since by aligning ourselves so closely with Musharraf, we did real damage to our own reputation in Pakistan.
One interesting note: as far as I can tell, the Pakistani religious parties seem to have done very, very badly. I hope this means that we won't hear any more hyperventilating about the possibility that jihadis could sweep to power in Pakistan at any minute if we don't keep supporting dictators. The religious parties have never been very popular in Pakistan. They seem to be even less popular now.
Friendships are fraying on the battlefield.
U.S. commanders don't think their NATO allies are fighting smart enough in Afghanistan. The NATO countries are insulted, and wonder why they're fighting America's war. And in the meantime, Taliban forces that once seemed defeated are growing in strength.
Why is the U.S. fighting with its NATO allies? And what can be done to salvage the mission in Afghanistan?
The old NATO, built on protecting Europe from a conventional attack by Warsaw Pact forces massed in Eastern Europe, is dead. We need a new NATO that's both flexible and capable of sending troops quickly to hot spots to fight unconventional wars.
There are no easy answers, but the United States can do more to demonstrate to the world that Afghanistan is a priority and help change public opinion in Europe. U.S. officials must move away from statements such as those of Admiral Mike Mullen in his recent Congressional testimony: "In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must." This only shows NATO populations in Europe and Canada that we are not serious about the mission, and makes them more dubious of the whole enterprise.
