News Revisiting the War on Terror: A Call to Action

  • Thread starter Thread starter tuco
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around Noam Chomsky's lecture titled "War on Terror," delivered at Trinity College in Dublin in January 2006. Chomsky emphasizes the need for self-reflection in addressing global terrorism, arguing that the West should reconsider its support for regimes that contribute to terror. He critiques U.S. foreign policy, particularly under Reagan and Bush, highlighting the continuity of key figures in both administrations and their roles in fostering terrorism. Chomsky asserts that definitions of terrorism implicate the U.S. as a leading terrorist state due to its historical actions, including support for violent regimes and interventions in countries like Nicaragua and Cuba. The conversation also touches on the complexities of labeling groups as "Islamic fascists," with participants debating the appropriateness of such terms and the implications of U.S. rhetoric in shaping perceptions of terrorism. Overall, the thread reflects a deep concern about the consequences of U.S. actions in the Middle East and the broader implications for international relations and security.
  • #31
Iraq War Fueling Terrorism, Intelligence Report Says
by Debbie Elliott and Mary Louise Kelly

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6135344
All Things Considered, September 24, 2006 · A new assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies finds that the threat of terrorism has grown since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that the war in Iraq has spawned a new generation of violent Islamic extremists. In other words, the Iraq war made the overall terrorism problem worse.

The leaked report, a National Intelligence Estimate, represents the consensus view of 16 U.S. spy agencies. It was produced by the National Intelligence Council, a thinktank of the U.S. intelligence community.

The document is still classified but it reportedly paints Iraq as a breeding ground for Islamist radicals.

It's the first formal report that assesses the global trend of terrorism since the Iraq war began.

The leaked report is also expected to have political impact, with campaigns in the final six-week stretch.

It would seem that Bush and his cronies have thrown the proverbial 'gasoline on the fire' and made matters worse.

Interesting commentary in the program. :rolleyes:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Great news for the bush administration, now they will have to buy more weapons, cut more civil liberties and invade a couple more countries.!
 
  • #33
Astronuc said:
... This is precisely the mistake that the US made in Vietnam. Bush's way is wrong!

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on a point here. I'll agree that we all need more understanding, but our failure to win the vietnam war is not related to this issue, in my opinion. It is related to our failure in avoiding the conflict in the first place, however. Ho Chi Minh asked for the support of the United States in its conflict with the imperialist french. We turned our backs, of course, and supported the french - which lead to a two decade+ involvement in a war.

Had we disregarded politics and bombed the north as extensively as we did the south, the vietnam conflict would have been winnable in so far as we could have defeated the ability of our "enemy" to fight back.

And so is the case with our modern war on "terror". A supreme lack of dialog and understanding has lead to our current situation. Understanding, to a point, will aid us in winning this war. By understanding i mean that we have to realize that not all muslims share this radical point of view and that most them aren't all that different from us westerners, on a fundamental level.

Understanding and dialog will not, however, destroy the ability of a sworn group of enemies to murder our citizens. This can only be done with rifles and bombs, in so far as those particular individuals are concerned.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a go-it-alone f the rest of the world attitude will prevail. We'll need the support of those nations that harbor, either voluntarily or not, those that seek to kill us. But I don't see talking to those people (the extremists) as a viable option for our self defense.
 
  • #34
ptabor said:
Understanding and dialog will not, however, destroy the ability of a sworn group of enemies to murder our citizens. This can only be done with rifles and bombs, in so far as those particular individuals are concerned.
Before the invasion of Iraq, though, the number of potential jihadists was small, and perhaps could have been monitored and controlled. According to newspaper reports yesterday and today, not only is the number of jihadi cells exploding, they have no association with al-Qaida, apart from a shared revulsion of US activities in Iraq and elsewhere in the ME, and their diversity and lack of centralization will make them very difficult to monitor. In other words, Bush's war, with its civilian casualties, torture, and suffering has been the perfect recruiting tool for potential terrorists.

This war was and is entirely unjustified. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, although the administration insinuates that it did in every speech about terrorism. If Bush wanted to punish the people who allowed al-Qaida to develop and flourish, he need have looked no further than his family friends and business associates - the Bin Ladens and the House of Saud. The fact that the Bin Ladens and relatives of high-ranking Saudis in the US were not allowed to be questioned by our intelligence agencies, and were the only civilians allowed to fly in the days after 9-11 ought to tell you something. If Bill Clinton had acted in this outrageous manner, the Republican Congress would have had his head.
 
  • #35
turbo,

I'm sorry if you got from my post that I support our initial action in Iraq. I assure you this is not the case. If it were up to me, we would never have gone there - but it wasn't.
 
  • #36
ptabor said:
turbo,

I'm sorry if you got from my post that I support our initial action in Iraq. I assure you this is not the case. If it were up to me, we would never have gone there - but it wasn't.
No, I didn't think that, but the idea that the only way to deal with armed resistance is with guns and bombs is part of the monkey-trap this administration has gotten us into. They are unwilling to even consider that any foreign-policy initiatives, dialogues, etc can be useful, so they "stay the course" and continue to kill Iraqis. This generates more hatred for the US every day, and as a result, our young men and women are constantly in harm's way, and we as a country face a far greater threat from terrorism than we ever would have had the war not been started. We must develop a rational plan to deal with the violence, so the situation can be stabilized and our troops can withdraw without triggering genocide. More bombs and guns is not the way, though with the present political situation in Iraq (thanks, Bushco!) our options are far more limited than in the first few weeks after the invasion. Bush removed the strongest stabilizing force in Iraq (Saddam) without thinking through the consequences of his actions. As a result, religious fundamentalists and political opportunists have filled the power vacuum and are polarizing and radicalizing their followers. If we had set about to rebuild the damage in Iraq and restore their infrastructure as soon as possible, and had not disbanded their military and police groups, we might have had a chance at keeping a semblance of order in Iraq.

As for the often-heard comparisons to Viet Nam: a little history is in order. During WWII, the US wanted help in driving the Japanese out of French Indo-China, so they turned to a patriot who had been fighting French colonial rule for years - Ho Chi Minh. The US intelligence community affectionately called him "Uncle Ho". When they asked him what resources they could supply him, he said that he wanted 12 Colt .45 ACPs with holster rigs to give to his lieutenants as a sign of the US support for their activities. All he asked was that after the war, the French would not be allowed to reclaim his country as a colony, so the Vietnamese could live in self-determination. Despite the great debt owed to the US by the French, the US did not follow through on their promise, and allowed the French to re-occupy "French Indo-China". Ho Chi Minh was not a communist - he was a pragmatist who fell in with the enemy of his enemy to try to drive foreign occupiers out of his country. If the US had kept its promise to that little band of freedom fighters after WWII ended, Viet Nam would have been our strongest ally in the region, and that nasty destructive war would not have occured.
 
  • #37
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on a point here. I'll agree that we all need more understanding, but our failure to win the vietnam war is not related to this issue, in my opinion. It is related to our failure in avoiding the conflict in the first place, however. Ho Chi Minh asked for the support of the United States in its conflict with the imperialist french. We turned our backs, of course, and supported the french - which lead to a two decade+ involvement in a war.

Had we disregarded politics and bombed the north as extensively as we did the south, the vietnam conflict would have been winnable in so far as we could have defeated the ability of our "enemy" to fight back.
I was reflecting on the fact that the US should not have sent troops to Vietnam, nor invaded/occupied Vietnam. The US involvement in Vietnam was a gross miscalcuation motivated by the desire to 'contain' Communism, which seems to be predicated on the notion that Communism was some monolithic force.

Was the involvement in Vietnam motivated by a desire to defend freedom and democracy - Absolutely Not! The US supported various dictatorships, like it had done so in S. & Central America, Africa, other parts of Asia - all of which were cooperative with the US.

The war killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The US could not have won in Vietnam unless it killed the majority of the population - which was on the minds of some military folk who wanted to 'bomb Vietnam back to the Stone Age'.

A Vietnames colleague who escaped from Saigon in 1973 after the fall told me that as far as he knew, the majority of S. Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh! He estimated 80% of S. Vietnamese wanted the US gone. How could the US have won if this was the case?

At the same time, democracy was not realized in the US, because African-Americans were denied participation as full citizens, well into the 1960's and into the 1970's in some parts of the southern US. :rolleyes: This I saw first hand.
 
  • #38
The Nation -- Reality intrudes again. President Bush and his allies keep insisting that the invasion of Iraq was essential to winning the fight against anti-American Islamic jihadists. The government's top experts on terrorism and Islamic extremism disagree. As The New York Times reported on Sunday, a National Intelligence Estimate produced earlier this year noted that the Iraq war has fueled Islamic radicalism around the globe and has caused the terrorist threat to grow. In other words, Bush's invasion of Iraq has been counterproductive. Or put this way: the ugly war in Iraq that has claimed the lives of thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians has placed the United States more at risk.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060925/cm_thenation/3124395

According to other links this NIE was completed in April. I have a gut feeling that a lot of people didn't need this report to come to come to the same conclusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
Bill Let's U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856

All Things Considered, September 29, 2006 · The new detainee legislation passed by Congress this week addresses who can be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant and what rights enemy combatants are entitled to. And it could have an impact on the president's ability to declare that an American citizen is an enemy combatant.

Presumably, there are already laws on the books regarding treason, so why does Congress need to give Bush additional powers? :rolleyes:
 
  • #41
War is expensive -

Report: U.S. Spending $2 Billion a Week in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6159989
Day to Day, September 28, 2006 · A new analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service shows the continued U.S.-led occupation of Iraq is now costing U.S. taxpayers almost $2 billion per week -- an increase of 20 percent from 2005.

Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, talks with Madeleine Brand about where the money's going and how much more might be needed.

And -

U.S. Military Questions Iraqi Government's Resolve
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6158278
Morning Edition, September 28, 2006 · The U.S. military says it can't leave Iraq until there's a stronger government in place. But over the past few weeks, U.S. commanders have repeatedly expressed frustration with the Iraqi government. They say Iraq's government hasn't been able to provide essential services, weed out corruption or rein in brutal militias.
Well, I guess it's not going according to plan. Oh, yeah . . . what plan? :rolleyes:

Meanwhile -

Poll: Iraqis Want U.S. Out, Strong Leadership
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6154791
All Things Considered, September 27, 2006 · A new opinion poll shows that most Iraqis want American troops to withdraw from the country within a year. It shows growing confidence in Iraq's own security forces, as well as broad support for a strong central government, despite the push by Shiite and Kurdish political leaders for greater regional autonomy.

Majorities among Iraq's Sunnis, Shia and Kurds want the government to disband militias. And large majorities, even among Iraq's Sunnis, oppose al-Qaida in Iraq.

The poll was commissioned by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland and was conducted in Iraq earlier this month.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
From - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/tomsen.html
It was known [after the bombing in Afghanistan started] that [the Taliban and Al Qaeda] would come back to Pakistan after we drove them out. Why didn't we go after them? I mean, there were American military commanders, I understand, who wanted to go push into the tribal areas and go after these guys.

That would be disastrous.

Why?

For the same reason it was disastrous for the British and recently for the Pakistani military in South Waziristan. When you go into these areas, you're, like, in the middle of another guerrilla war which you can't win. And as you know, if a conventional army does not win and a guerrilla force survives, then the conventional army loses.

Let's say we put our foot down and say, "You've got to clean this area up." If we can't do it, if our military would be pinned down in a guerrilla war, who's going to take back the tribal areas?

The sources that are keeping this infrastructure in place along the frontier are Pakistani. It's the ISI; it's the religious parties in Pakistan. It's still a lot of Saudi and other private money -- not from the Saudi government, private money from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE [United Arab Emirates] that's flowing still into the region and which has been flowing for the last 30 years, sustaining those 10,000-plus madrassas and training camps along the border.

So if Pakistan wants to crack down, they can stop that funding from coming in which is sustaining the infrastructure, and they can crack down on the religious parties that are really the lifeblood of the infrastructure. …

. . . .

Can we have success in Afghanistan without addressing the question of Pakistan and the sanctuaries?

I don't think so. I mean, as long as the situation is like it is today, where the Taliban and these other anti-U.S. … extremist Afghans like Hekmatyar and Haqqani are able to use Pakistani territory to mount attacks into Afghanistan, it's going to destabilize the already fragile situation in the country left over from 23 years of conflict. Five years from now, we will be at the same position we are today, or it will be worse. So if we want to reverse this plateau situation or a negative trend that's under way in terms of security, certainly, inside Afghanistan, we have to start with Pakistan. …

Should we be legitimately worried that western Pakistan can become the kind of failed state that Afghanistan was before 9/11, harboring Al Qaeda, providing a base for global terrorist operations?

Actually, it already is. Various State Department terrorism reports have stated that the gravamen of world terrorism has moved from the Middle East to northern Pakistan. … Now those areas, too, will become a springboard for international terrorism. …
According to Bush, the US is winning. The reality seems to be quite the opposite.

So how long before Bush concedes that he was wrong (and has been wrong from the beginning)?

How long before Bush stops going down the same path of failure?

Could this be the October surprise? Rumsfeld out? Cheney resigns? Rice becomes VP? Set Rice up for 2008?
 
  • #43
G.O.P.’s Baker Hints Iraq Plan Needs Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/world/middleeast/09baker.html
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — James A. Baker III, the Republican co-chairman of a bipartisan panel reassessing Iraq strategy for President Bush, said Sunday that he expected the panel would depart from Mr. Bush’s repeated calls to “stay the course,” and he strongly suggested that the White House enter direct talks with countries it had so far kept at arm’s length, including Iran and Syria.

“I believe in talking to your enemies,” he said in an interview on the ABC News program “This Week,” noting that he made 15 trips to Damascus, the Syrian capital, while serving Mr. Bush’s father as secretary of state.

“It’s got to be hard-nosed, it’s got to be determined,” Mr. Baker said. “You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”

Mr. Bush refused to deal with Iran until this spring, when he said the United States would join negotiations with Tehran if it suspended enriching nuclear fuel. Iran has so far refused. Contacts with both Syria and North Korea have also been sharply limited.

But the “Iraq Study Group,” created by Mr. Baker last March with the encouragement of some members of Congress to come up with new ideas on Iraq strategy, has already talked to some representatives of Iran and Syria about Iraq’s future, he said.

. . .

“He’s a very loyal Republican, and you won’t see him go against Bush,” said a colleague of Mr. Baker, who asked not to be identified because the study group is keeping a low profile before it formally issues recommendations. “But he feels that the yearning for some responsible way out which would not damage American interests is palpable, and the frustration level is exceedingly high.”

At 76, Mr. Baker still enjoys a reputation as one of Washington’s craftiest bureaucratic operators and as a trusted adviser of the Bush family, which has enlisted his help for some of its deepest crises, including the second President Bush’s effort to win the vote recount in Florida after the 2000 presidential election. Mr. Baker served as White House chief of staff, as well as secretary of state under the first President Bush.

Andrew H. Card Jr., President Bush’s former chief of staff, acknowledged recently that he had twice suggested that Mr. Baker would be a good replacement for Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. . . .

. . .

Given his extraordinary loyalty to the Bush family — Mr. Baker was present on Saturday at the formal christening of a new aircraft carrier named for the first President Bush — it was notable on Sunday that Mr. Baker also joined the growing number of Republicans who are trying to create some space between themselves and the White House.

. . . .

This is a pretty significant development!
 
  • #44
Astronuc said:
G.O.P.’s Baker Hints Iraq Plan Needs Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/world/middleeast/09baker.html


This is a pretty significant development!
IMO, this is an attempt to feign a "new course" on the part of the Administration, giving some hope to Republican moderates, so they will at least go to the polls. I know lifetime Republicans who are thoroughly sickened by our needless aggression against the Iraqis and by BushCo lies justifying the slaughter and hiding the severity of the insurgency. Bringing in Baker could sway some of these fence-sitters into holding their noses and voting Republican in November, but anybody that believes that Cheney and Rove will quietly give up their control of the administration's "shoot first" foreign policy (with all the billions of tax dollars they can steer to their cronies) has not been paying attention for the last 6 years. That's not how these guys are wired. They are in this for personal wealth and power, with spin-doctors to tell us idiot citizens how their machinations are "good for America".
 
  • #45
From the BBC - - Bush's Iraq options limited
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5415638.stm
A warning by a senior Republican senator that "bold decisions" will be required on Iraq if progress is not made soon has prompted talk that the White House might be forced into policy changes after the mid-term elections in November.

Among the options is one to divide Iraq up into three loosely federated parts -- Shia, Sunni and Kurd. That has some serious drawbacks.

But some change is in the political air in Washington. The former US Secretary of State James Baker, who co-chairs a panel tasked by Congress to examine options, said on ABC News over the weekend: "I think it's fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of 'stay the course' and 'cut and run.'"

Mr Baker's commission is due to report after the mid-term elections. It could be the peg on which a shift of approach is hung.

The co-chair Democrat Lee Hamilton has been critical of the Iraqi government's performance. "The Iraqi government must act," said Mr Hamilton in September. "The government of Iraq needs to show its own citizens soon, and the citizens of the United States, that it is deserving of continued support.''

The problem for President George W Bush was illustrated by an example only this last week.

The hope that US troops would be "stood down" as Iraqi troops "stood up" was turned upside down. It was an Iraqi police unit in Baghdad that was stood down, because of suspicions that it was condoning militia murders. If the US cannot rely on the Iraqis, then the policy of transferring responsibility has no prospect of success.

The president's options are limited.

There are at least four wars going on Iraq - the war by jihadists against US troops, the war by nationalists against US troops, the war by Sunni jihadists against Shias and the war by Shia militias against Sunnis.

Any action he takes to alleviate one area could impact on another.
. . . .
 
  • #46
There are at least four wars going on Iraq - the war by jihadists against US troops, the war by nationalists against US troops, the war by Sunni jihadists against Shias and the war by Shia militias against Sunnis.
There are complicating factors in each of these wars that limit US options. For instance, it appears that the Iraqi police are complicit in and/or are directly responsible for abductions, torture, and mass executions of Sunnis.

The administration disbanded the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police forces that could have helped restore calm in the early months of the occupation, and instead of establishing an interim government with a resonable mix of parties, they banned Baathists from public office, guaranteeing that they would be outraged by their total disenfranchisement. What did Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld think that armed out-of-work policemen and soldiers would do when their neighborhoods are occupied or are attacked by rival groups? Remember, these are people who used to have reliable potable water, sanitation, electricity, and fuel. They also used to be able to send their children to school and attend religious services and socialize in cafes, etc without fear of being murdered. That's all gone now.

The tactics used by these people may be similar to attacks characterized as "terrorist attacks" in the popular press, but their motivations are widely disparate. As such, lumping all these attacks together as "terrorism" is overly simplistic and practically guarantees that the US responses will be inappropriate, fueling more violence. This administration claims "we will not bargain with terrorists", but the sad fact is that they label anybody who promotes armed resistance against "favored" groups as terrorists, regardless of the nature of their grievances, and the lack of diplomacy and negotiation ensures the perpetuation of violence.
 
  • #47
On the road with the Taleban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6069842.stm
Nato troops in Afghanistan have been facing a growing number of suicide bomb attacks. It was hoped the troops would be able to make peace, win friends and provide security for reconstruction projects, but now it seems the regime they removed is beginning to return.

"You destroyed our government and all because of just one guest in our country, Osama," said the man leading the war against the British.

We sat late at night in what must have been the women's side of a house commandeered for just that night by a man who stays constantly on the move.

The family were not there of course, but their presence was all around.

A Chinese-made sewing machine sat in the corner, and small scraps of cloth littered the floor, mingling with the rinds and pith of pomegranates, which the Taleban soldiers who filled the room ate as we talked.

Mission not accomplished. The people who planned the attack on the US, bin Laden and al Zawahiri are alive and doing well. Meanwhile, the people who didn't, namely the Iraqis, are not - courtesy of Bush, Cheney, Rumseld, et al.
 
  • #48
I thought zawahiri was dead?
Isn't bin laden also dead? If not, we got him running and his "authority" falls greatly.
A war isn't complete in 2-3 years...I would say a decade or so (ex. previous wars). The fact is, we are making tons of improvement..media coverage however expose the negatives because they need the public, what better way to get massive views than to critize bush and cheney etc.

And people who state that we are in debt because of the war are wrong. We were heading into a recession when Clinton's era was done.
 
  • #49
Apparently neither bin Laden nor al Zawahiri are dead, but very much alive, and they are not running. In fact, al Qaida with support of Taliban have grown stronger during the last 3 years, while the US occupies Iraq. :rolleyes:
 
  • #50
Grown stronger? Can you provide some citations to back that up?

Last I heard, Taliban didn't even exist after US forces beat what was left of them.
 
  • #51
manbush said:
Grown stronger? Can you provide some citations to back that up?

Last I heard, Taliban didn't even exist after US forces beat what was left of them.

Sorry to burst your bubble. The Taliban is back big time.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-10-04-afghan-violence-cover_x.htm

As for Zawahiri being dead, he is very much alive in Afghanistan. Your are possibly thinking of Zarqawi who was killed in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Now, it's your turn...
manbush said:
I thought zawahiri was dead?
Isn't bin laden also dead? If not, we got him running and his "authority" falls greatly.
Citation?
A war isn't complete in 2-3 years...I would say a decade or so (ex. previous wars). The fact is, we are making tons of improvement..
Citation?
media coverage however expose the negatives because they need the public, what better way to get massive views than to critize bush and cheney etc.

And people who state that we are in debt because of the war are wrong. We were heading into a recession when Clinton's era was done.
This is so meaningless, I'm not even going to ask for a citation.

Are you here to have an honest discussion, or do you intend to merely parrot partisan talking points?
 
  • #53
manbush said:
Grown stronger? Can you provide some citations to back that up?

Start here - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/

Better yet, go see for yourself. Take a trip to Waziristan and the other tribal areas, or go visit Peshawar.

Where the Taliban still rule
Movement controls areas out of Pakistani government's reach
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wotali054618726feb09,0,4795733.story

Also you might be confusing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with Ayman al-Zawahiri. The US killed al-Zarqawi (a principal leader of al Qaida in Iraq).


manbush said:
Last I heard, Taliban didn't even exist after US forces beat what was left of them.
Well, what you heard is incorrect. The Taliban just drifted across the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, although some remained in Afghanistan.

Attacks by Taliban on NATO forces have been increasing, just like the attacks by insurgents on US forces in Iraq.


Taliban attacks double after Pakistan's deal with militants
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1883737,00.html
Declan Walsh in Kabul, The Guardian,
Friday September 29, 2006

Afghan offensives add weight to safe haven fear
Relations between Karzai and Musharraf hit new low

Taliban attacks along Afghanistan's southeastern border have more than doubled in the three weeks since a controversial deal between Pakistan and pro-Taliban militants, the US military said yesterday.
Pakistan's military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, had promised the agreement with militants in North Waziristan would help to bring peace to Afghanistan. But early indications suggest the pact is having the opposite effect, creating a safe haven for the Taliban to regroup and launch fresh cross-border offensives against western and Afghan troops.

A US military spokesman, Colonel John Paradis, said US soldiers had reported a "twofold, in some cases threefold" increase in attacks along the border since the deal was signed on September 5, "especially in the south-east areas across from North Waziristan".

Waziristan was one of many sore points between General Musharraf and his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai, who took their rivalry to Washington this week. Relations have hit an all-time low. Mr Karzai accuses Gen Musharraf of failing to shut down Taliban sanctuaries in Waziristan and other lawless Pakistani tribal areas. Gen Musharraf counters that Mr Karzai is scapegoating him to avoid facing up to his own weaknesses and a looming rebellion by Pashtun tribesmen. Gen Musharraf used US media interviews to belittle his rival, whom he accused of acting like "an ostrich with his head buried in the sand".


In border zone, Pakistan backs off from Taliban
A deal with Islamist rebels is the latest in a foreign policy pendulum that swings between aggression and optimism.

By David Montero | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0908/p01s04-wosc.html
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN – On the eve of the five year anniversary of 9/11, Pakistan's government struck a deal Tuesday with Taliban fighters, handing them what may turn out to be effective control over the tribal border region of North Waziristan.

Their allies will be freed from jail, confiscated weapons will be returned, and the Army will pull back from the check posts it has erected, ending aerial and ground operations. In return, the militants promise to evict foreign fighters and prevent infiltration into Afghanistan.

What looks like a stunning reversal of Pakistan's willingness to prosecute the war on terror is actually another pendulum shift between aggressive military tactics and optimistic deals for tribal support.

But neither approach has worked particularly well over the past five years, and this course has moved Pakistan away from the political reforms that many analysts here think would best combat terrorism and better integrate autonomous zones that have become havens for Islamic militants.

In the years since Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan has displayed a singular dedication to fighting foreign fighters and their local hosts - often at a great price, both real and political. Pouring 80,000 troops and hardware into the tribal zone, the Pakistani military has lost nearly one man for every Al Qaeda operative - totaling several hundred - it has captured or killed. President Pervez Musharraf has nearly lost his life twice in the fight, after Al Qaeda's suicide bombers trained their sights on him. Few contest this record of sacrificial bravery.

But some say that it has come at a great national price: As the battle against Al Qaeda has mounted, so, too, has the military grown in strength and political influence, becoming in essence the very state it is supposed to serve. That has allowed it to break up Al Qaeda's network, but also to rupture the political landscape, splintering parties and institutions into fragments that can barely challenge its rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004-2006_Waziristan_conflict

Yes, the Pakistani army is going after al Qaida, sort of. There are al Qaida elements which are not being targeted - because if they were - it would be big news. The real issue is if the ISI or some elements in ISI are trying to remove Musharraf, and if that happens, what then? Will ISI cut a deal with al Qaida?
 
  • #54
My mistake!