The show goes on...
March 20 will mark the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and what does the U.S. have to show for it? Certainly not bin Laden’s head on a spike, which raises the question if they even really want it.
Regardless of all the resources available to the U.S. (on February 6, George W. Bush sent Congress a 2006 defence budget of US$419.3 billion), it is quite possible that the powers that be know where bin Laden is, but have chosen not to grab him.
Consider that the U.S. has numerous satellites at its disposal powerful enough to read a licence plate from space. Further, the country has enough cash to buy all the tea in China. Wouldn’t you think that it would offer a substantial sum for the man responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans, and don’t you think at least someone somewhere would go for it? But nodda on both counts.
Why?
The theory goes something like this: The U.S. asked Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf to provide support for the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Musharraf agreed, but only after purging his military and intelligence service of senior officers considered to lean toward the extremist side. (It has been reported that roughly half of Pakistan’s security services and, according to some, Pakistani society at large, is made up of fundamentalists who support al Qaeda or who, at the very least, do not support the U.S.)
Anti-American sentiment is fierce in Pakistan, and just about anything could push the country over the brink. The concern is with civil war. And with Pakistan being a nuclear power, if extremists were to overthrow Musharraf (don’t forget, he gained power in 1999 after a coup) the country’s neuks could end up in terrorist hands. It is such a real consideration that the U.S. could very well be leaving bin Laden alone for fear that capturing him would trigger a firestorm in Pakistan.
The killing March 2 of a U.S. foreign services officer in a bomb-blast just prior to president Bush’s visit to Pakistan shows just how volatile that country is (as do the three attempts on Musharraf’s life, that we know of).
Additionally, the fiery reaction to two U.S. missile attacks in Pakistan (the first on December 3, 2005, which killed senior al Qaeda lieutenant Hamza Rabia; and the second on January 13, 2006, which killed 18, none of whom were Ayman al-Zawahiri, purported to be the target) illustrate the strong anti-American sentiment in the country.
Pakistanis were outraged by the attacks, to the point where Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz lodged an official complaint during his visit to the White House January 24 (it has been reported that U.S. and Pakistani forces worked together on the first attack).
If missiles launched from a drone could spark such outrage, can you imagine what the capture of bin Laden on Pakistani soil by foreign troops would do?
I’m not sure anyone, even the U.S., is willing to find out.
Until then, we will continue to hear promises from the White House that the U.S. will not rest until Osama is captured. In others news, OJ is still searching for his wife’s murderer.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regardless of all the resources available to the U.S. (on February 6, George W. Bush sent Congress a 2006 defence budget of US$419.3 billion), it is quite possible that the powers that be know where bin Laden is, but have chosen not to grab him.
Consider that the U.S. has numerous satellites at its disposal powerful enough to read a licence plate from space. Further, the country has enough cash to buy all the tea in China. Wouldn’t you think that it would offer a substantial sum for the man responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans, and don’t you think at least someone somewhere would go for it? But nodda on both counts.
Why?
The theory goes something like this: The U.S. asked Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf to provide support for the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Musharraf agreed, but only after purging his military and intelligence service of senior officers considered to lean toward the extremist side. (It has been reported that roughly half of Pakistan’s security services and, according to some, Pakistani society at large, is made up of fundamentalists who support al Qaeda or who, at the very least, do not support the U.S.)
Anti-American sentiment is fierce in Pakistan, and just about anything could push the country over the brink. The concern is with civil war. And with Pakistan being a nuclear power, if extremists were to overthrow Musharraf (don’t forget, he gained power in 1999 after a coup) the country’s neuks could end up in terrorist hands. It is such a real consideration that the U.S. could very well be leaving bin Laden alone for fear that capturing him would trigger a firestorm in Pakistan.
The killing March 2 of a U.S. foreign services officer in a bomb-blast just prior to president Bush’s visit to Pakistan shows just how volatile that country is (as do the three attempts on Musharraf’s life, that we know of).
Additionally, the fiery reaction to two U.S. missile attacks in Pakistan (the first on December 3, 2005, which killed senior al Qaeda lieutenant Hamza Rabia; and the second on January 13, 2006, which killed 18, none of whom were Ayman al-Zawahiri, purported to be the target) illustrate the strong anti-American sentiment in the country.
Pakistanis were outraged by the attacks, to the point where Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz lodged an official complaint during his visit to the White House January 24 (it has been reported that U.S. and Pakistani forces worked together on the first attack).
If missiles launched from a drone could spark such outrage, can you imagine what the capture of bin Laden on Pakistani soil by foreign troops would do?
I’m not sure anyone, even the U.S., is willing to find out.
Until then, we will continue to hear promises from the White House that the U.S. will not rest until Osama is captured. In others news, OJ is still searching for his wife’s murderer.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
posted by RG McGillivray at 1:50 p.m.
0 comments
