Little incentive to nab bin Laden - thought-provoking IHT op-ed

[baby_bear]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/11/news/edrashid.php


Little incentive to nab bin Laden
By Ahmed Rashid International Herald Tribune

TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2005

<snip>

LAHORE, Pakistan The terrifying spectacle of a great city once again plunged into chaos and grief underlines one of the more glaring failures of the U.S.-led war on terrorism: the failure to capture Osama bin Laden. Washington has mainly itself to blame. By transferring resources, satellite surveillance and manpower to Iraq, the United States not only took the pressure off bin Laden, but also gave the Taliban, Al Qaeda, drug barons and warlords time and space to reconstitute themselves in Afghanistan, where insurgent attacks are causing the bloodiest summer since 2001.
...
But the reality is that Musharraf has little incentive to catch bin Laden - and it may even be in the military's interest to keep him alive, without necessarily knowing where he is. Pakistan's military fears that its alliance with the United States is a short-term one, based on cooperating in the war on terrorism, while Washington's long-term ally in the region is India, Pakistan's rival, with which the United States signed a 10-year strategic defense pact on June 29. According to this logic, America cannot dump Pakistan as long as the war on terrorism continues and bin Laden remains to be captured.
...
So turning a blind eye to bin Laden's whereabouts and to Taliban recruitment inside Pakistan gives the army leverage over both Washington and Kabul. That leverage was evident during last year's presidential elections in Afghanistan: Only after a private meeting between Musharraf and President George W. Bush did Taliban attacks mysteriously cease for the duration of the elections.

At the same time, Musharraf's own political survival partially depends on not catching bin Laden. Pakistan is witnessing far greater anti-Americanism and sympathy for bin Laden than ever existed in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. The army's top brass has no interest in provoking the terrorist mayhem and increased extremism that would certainly follow if bin Laden is caught or killed on Pakistani soil.
</snip>

b_b

most enlightening

[SheepyMcSheepster]

1. never really thought about the situation this way

pretty interesting, thanks for posting.

[SweetLeftFoot]

2. Fairly simple

It's not rocket science to realise that the Pakistanis need Bin Laden

[justinsb]

3. Of course it's not in *'s interest either

don't want the boogie man to be out of the picture, what will you scare people with?

[Gloria]

4. Related: Afghan. and Pakistan are going at it over Osama---

2//Xinhua Online, China 2005-07-09 23:08:31

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-07/09/content_3198451.htm



CONTINUING MILITANCY IN BORDER AREAS TO UNDERMINE KABUL-ISLAMABAD RELATIONS



KABUL, July 9 (Xinhuanet) -- The increasing Taliban-led insurgency in Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan would further damage the strained relations between Kabul and Islamabad, as President Hamid Karzai rejected Islamabad's claim about the presence of Osama in Afghanistan.

Karzai on Thursday in a sharp reaction flatly rejected Islamabad's claim, saying "Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan."



Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao told newsmen in Islamabad Tuesday that "al-Qaida chief Osama Bin Laden could be hiding in southern and eastern provinces of Afghanistan where the writ of the government is not so strong."



Sherpao also told the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan (APP) on Monday that Taliban's elusive chief Mullah Mohammad Omar and Osama's deputy al-Zawahir may also be in southeastern Afghanistan.



The claim infuriated Kabul and Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman Lutfullah Mashal in a counter claim said "both the fugitives Omar and Osama are in the Pakistani tribal belt areas close to Afghanistan."



(SNIP)



Meanwhile, Pakistan's Minister for Information and Media Development Shikh Rashid Ahmad termed Karzai's administration as a "failed government," saying the Afghan government by leveling such charges "try to conceal its massive security failure by urging Pakistan to play a more proactive role in checking cross-border movement of terrorists."

MORE juicy back and forth

[baby_bear]

5. Thanks for the post, Gloria

It would sound like a soap opera weren't it so deadly serious.

b_b

[Frederik]

6. Thanks, very interesting

I do wonder if Bush would actually like to capture Bin Laden but is unable to because Pakistan refuses to let him. The US has a new bogeyman in Zarqawi anyway and Shrubs approval rating is in the toilet, so capturing Bin Laden in a "spider hole" would give him a much-needed boost.

I think the US needs Pakistan as much as Pakistan needs the US though. The US is losing the hegemony they won in Central Asia after 9/11. The Central Asian republics are now aligning themselves with China and Russia (who are closer to each other than they have ever been and recently announced a "new world order") and they have demanded a timetable for withdrawal of US forces from the region. It's only been three and a half years, and the neo-cons are already losing the New Great Game.

I'm reminded of this: when Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl was kidnapped by "al-Qaida" in Pakistan, his kidnappers demanded that the US resume its sale of F-16s to Pakistan. Pearl was murdered, but the resumed sale of the latest version of the F-16 to Pakistan was announced earlier this year. Either the US is desperate for an ally, or the US is being blackmailed, or Boeing really needed the contract. Or all of the above.

Interesting Asia Times article on the slipping away from the neo-cons' grasp of the Central Asian countries:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GG13Ag01.html