Sunday, February 18, 2007
I have recently commented very disparagingly on the Bush Administration's dealings with North Korea regarding its quest for nuclear weaponry, but not so much lately on its recent diplomatic moves in the Middle East. No matter. Caroline Glick does a far better job than I could have, tying the two together and considering as far as possible the implications of both. Her summary:
Whether the US arrives at its showdown with Iran from a position of weakness or strength, willingly or unwillingly, there is no doubt that the confrontation is approaching. And the difference between initiating the confrontation and allowing Iran to initiate it with a nuclear first strike is not a trivial question. It will make a difference of millions of lives. The question of the hour is therefore whether the little time left before the war is being used wisely.The whole thing is a must-read, of course. And then, if you've the stomach for it, you can hop on over to FrontPage Magazine for a good article about our "ally", Pakistan by Janet Levy.
And here is the great failure. By sending a message of weakness now, in order to purchase maneuvering time that may not be obtained [This is the most generous interpretation I can imagine for our recent diplomatic activity. --ed], the US this week has accelerated rather than distanced the moment of truth while doing nothing to build support or increase its chances of triumph when the inevitable occurs. [my bold]
Musharraf has done little to curb extremism in Pakistan and his actions have been a direct threat to U.S. anti-terrorist efforts. Under Pakistan’s watchful eye, Islamists continue to operate openly throughout Pakistan and export terrorism to Afghanistan. Can we really still afford to count on Pakistan as an ally? It is time for President Bush to seriously ask Pakistan, "Are you with us or with the terrorists?"This is all terrible news, but it is worth taking note of now, for our Congress is in the process of taking advantage of America's proper contempt for Bush's "war effort" to push not for our proper defense, but for an anti-war agenda. Those of us in favor of fighting Islamofascism must recognize that this is not really fighting a war -- so we can make the case for the real thing by contrast.
2-19-07: The New York Times reports that al Qaeda is well on its way towards reestablishing itself from new bases in Pakistan.
[E]xperts questioned the seriousness of Pakistan’s commitment. They argued that elements of Pakistan's military still supported the Taliban and saw them as a valuable proxy to counter the rising influence of India, Pakistan's regional rival.Doing their best, eh? Sure they are.
Pakistani officials say that they are doing their best to gain control of the area and that military efforts to pacify it have failed, but that more reconstruction aid is needed. [bold added]
But the following takes the cake: "State Department officials say increased American pressure could undermine President Musharraf's military-led government." Yeah. And?