Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

How Bad Is Bush's Failure in Pakistan? It's Absolute

Posted by Cliff Schecter, Brave New Films at 11:00 AM on November 12, 2007.


Cliff Schecter: This has to be the dumbest foreign policy in Asia since the Chinese figured they could hold Genghis Khan with a big wall.
musharraf

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Cliff Schecter, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films Blog

This from The Washington Post:

For nearly four years, under the banner of the "war on terror," Bush has refused to demand access to Khan, the ultranationalist Pakistani scientist who created a vast network that has spread nuclear know-how to North Korea, Iran and Libya. Indeed, Bush has never seriously squeezed Musharraf over Khan, who remains a national hero for bringing Pakistan the Promethean fire it can use to compete with its nuclear-armed nemesis, India. Khan has remained under house arrest in Islamabad since 2004, outside the reach of the CIA and investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency, who are desperate to unlock the secrets he carries. Bush should be equally adamant about getting to the bottom of Khan's activities.

Bush's sluggishness over Pakistan-based proliferation, even as he has funneled about $10 billion in military and financial aid to Musharraf since Sept. 11, 2001, is even harder to explain when one considers the damage Khan has done to the world's fragile nuclear stability. Khan used stolen technology and black-market sales to help Pakistan obtain its nuclear arsenal, setting the stage for a possible atomic showdown with India. He played a pivotal role in helping Iran start what we increasingly fear is a clandestine nuclear-arms program, allowing Tehran to make significant progress in the shadows before its efforts were uncovered in 2002. He gave key uranium-enrichment technology to North Korea. And if all this weren't enough, he was busily outfitting Libya with a full bomb-making factory when his network was finally shut down in late 2003. Khan has been held incommunicado ever since, leaving the world with new nuclear flashpoints -- and some burning, unanswered questions about his black-market spree.

The most urgent line of inquiry -- particularly given Bush's bellicose statements about the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions -- centers on what exactly Khan provided to the Iranians over 15 years of doing business with them. He could help answer the questions on which war may depend: Is Iran trying to get the bomb? If so, how close is Tehran to obtaining it? Or are the mullahs simply pursuing a civilian nuclear capacity?

Just like he ignored bin Laden to start a civil war in Iraq, now he ignores the man who could answer our questions about Iran and who happens to be under his very nose in Pakistan, our "ally," so that he can just bomb Iran and perhaps start a nuclear war.

This has to be the dumbest foreign policy in Asia since the Chinese figured they could hold Genghis Khan with a big wall.

Yes folks, President Bush has made us much, much, much safer....

Digg!

Tagged as: bush, pakistan, nuclear proliferation, musharraf, middle east, iran

Cliff Schecter blogs at Brave New Films.


Race-Baiting Former Senator Jesse Helms Has Died
Conservative Republican railed against "Negro hoodlums", opposed the Voting Rights Act, backed terrorists, and died an unrepentant segregationist.
Post by Lindsay Beyerstein. July 4, 2008.
NYC Cops Harass Club Owner Whose CCTV Footage Overturned Drug Conviction
Talk about shooting the messenger.
Post by . July 4, 2008.
Watermelon is the New Viagra
USDA-funded research helps Americans put some pizazz in their picnic baskets this fourth of July.
Post by Lindsay Beyerstein. July 3, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
But...
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 12, 2007 11:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I'm not afraid of Pakistan yet.

The Republican news models tell me that I have to be afraid of the Qaida's sandals, the liberals' airplanes, the liberals' shopping malls, and the liberals' mail.

The Democrat news models tell me that I have to be afraid of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Stephen Colbert, and being paranoid.

Where the hell will I find time to let the news models make me afraid of the Pakistan?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But... Posted by: VZEQICVA
All neighbors of Israel must obtain nuclear weapons
Posted by: Nick on Nov 12, 2007 12:38 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
only then peace will prevail

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sounds Very Familiar
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Nov 13, 2007 3:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, let's see. There is an unpopular president with scant regard for the laws, constitution human rights, backed by a brutal intelligence service and rubber-stamp legislative branch. He is fighting an ineffectual, in fact counterproductive, war on Islamic extremism and uses it to justify enriching his cronies and eroding democracy and civil liberties. He's busily packing the courts with lickspittle judges and an outspoken opponent of liberal judges. No, I'm not talking about Musharraf.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two of a kind
Posted by: frank69 on Nov 13, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush and Musharraf - two peas in a pod!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Two of a kind Posted by: ConnecttheDots
And its OK for the US to have WMD?
Posted by: hilaryuk on Nov 13, 2007 12:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course there is wholesale inconsistency in US policy towards Pakistan, and of course nuclear proliferation is a growing problem. But Bush still seems to be winning the argument in important respects. Nobody but American commentators seriously believe that Iran is anywhere near having nuclear weapons, nobody but American commentators believe that the President of Iran has absolute power - at the most he's on the second tier in a complex political web. But again and again I see, even on this site, contributors taking both assumptions as read. So the White House's propaganda machine is still working.

And why do the "traditional" nuclear powers assume that it is OK for them to have WMDs because they are somehow more responsible? In actual fact Iran has not substantively broken the Nuclear proliferation treaty as yet; the US and UK have as they are effectively upgrading their weapons. And I am not alone in thinking that your present administration is so irrational, bellicose and irresponsible that it constitutes a much greater danger to the world than Iran. Western allies - Pakistan, India and Israel - also pose a more immediate threat than Iran, motivated as they are by regional imperatives. Perhaps it is time for us to consider the planks in our own eyes rather than pontificating on the motes in those of our enemies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Pakistan situation
Posted by: bettyn on Nov 13, 2007 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is frightening...and imagine how the INDIANS feel with this nuclear armed mess right next door!! The longer this goes on, the more likely a Pakistan/India nuclear war becomes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Not Absolute Yet.
Posted by: Urgelt on Nov 16, 2007 8:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pakistan could be worse. We haven't seen the worst yet.

The worst outcome of our foreign policy would be a nuclear Pakistan ruled by radical Islamicists - the Taliban and their ilk. That hasn't happened yet. But there's no doubt we've contributed to Pakistan's instability by propping up a dictatorship against the wishes of its own people. The Pakistani military, once the most stable and moderate political element in the country, is taking some hard hits these days and might fracture. Legitimacy problems tend to do that.

We should have learned years ago, when our policy of propping up the Shah of Iran led to a radical Islamic state utterly hostile to American interests, that propping up dictators, CIA assassinations, and cruel trade and banking policies tend to radicalize populations and work against our long-term interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]