Jaded Sage:

New information is being revealed in regards to America’s war against our true enemy, Al Qaeda. In one of those “The emperor has no clothes” moments, President Bush is apparently fuming from the fact this information has surfaced. It tells the story of President Musharaf cutting deals with the Taliban in the tribal areas of Pakistan, in essence appeasing the terrorists. Also revealed are inter-agency turf battles that left key strategic operations on the planning board. Highlighted in these latest reports is the impact the Iraq War had on the real “war on terror”. Key assets that were required to aggressively go against Al Qaeda and Taliban elements in Pakistan were sent to Iraq. Even CIA operatives were diverted to the Iraq War in the years following 2003. As a result the terrorist organization that was responsible for the death of 3000 US civilians has effectively reconstituted itself several hundred miles from where they planned the 2001 attacks. The following article details the facts of how the current administration has duped the American people into believing we are safer as a result of their leadership and how their use of fear as a reason to be elected is nothing short of a sham. George Bush has done very little since taking office in 2001. The engine of his presidency has been the Iraq War, and as it sucked out all the oxygen from the room, the real threat continues to burn brightly in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE

Amid policy disputes, Qaeda grows in Pakistan

By Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde

Monday, June 30, 2008

WASHINGTON: Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to authorize the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda.

Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about Osama bin Laden’s terror network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal areas, a problem that had been exacerbated by years of missteps in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, sharp policy disagreements, and turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies.

The new plan, outlined in a highly classified Pentagon order, was designed to eliminate some of those battles. And it was meant to pave an easier path into the tribal areas for American commandos, who for years have bristled at what they see as Washington’s risk-averse attitude toward Special Operations missions inside Pakistan. They also argue that catching Bin Laden will come only by capturing some of his senior lieutenants alive.

But more than six months later, the Special Operations forces are still waiting for the green light. The plan has been held up in Washington by the very disagreements it was meant to eliminate. A senior Defense Department official said there was “mounting frustration” in the Pentagon at the continued delay.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush committed the nation to a “war on terrorism” and made the destruction of Bin Laden’s network the top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world.

Read More

Death to America! It is the chant that is synonymous with Iran. With Saddam toppled and the North Koreans actively discussing stepping down from their nuclear program the final member of the "Axis of Evil" remains Iran. Their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for the destruction of Israel. This in turn has led to statements out of Tel Aviv that caused a jolt to the markets on Friday. Recently a movie entitled Charlie Wilson’s War told the story of a Congressman who pulled for the arming of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. The lessons from this movie tell only half the story.

Lost in all the debate about what to do about Iran is a forgotten component to the history of the region. For this we must go back over half a century. Up through WW II Iran had been controlled by England. Their vast oil assets were managed by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (despite its name the company paid only a small pittance to the ruling elite of Iran and kept the huge profits in British hands). When Aramco (the Arab American Oil Company) was formed in Saudi Arabia the profits were shared 50-50. Following WW II the Iranian leadership and the multitude of Iranians wished for a similar deal with AIOC. When they were rebuffed by the British a new Iranian leader stepped forward. Mohammed Mossadeq was elected by the Iranian Parliament. Mossedeq was the leader of the Iranian National Front, a liberal, nationalist, social democratic organization that wished to bring democracy to Iran and strengthen itself by nationalizing its oil reserves.  Soon after being elected Prime Minister in 1951 Mossedeq and the Iranian Parliament passed the Oil Nationalization Act. The British protested vehemently, first to the UN and the World Court and then proceeded to pull their technicians out, leaving Iran with lots of oil but no specialists to extract and refine it. After much debate within Britain, they decided to initiate a coup d’etat but the Iranians caught wind of it and expelled all the English diplomatic corps which stopped the coup before it could begin. 1951 turned into 1952 and this was an election year in the US. The Truman administration refused to act alongside Britain. But the new Eisenhower administration was different. The Secretary of State was John Foster Dulles.  Dulles had been a lawyer for large multi-national corporations prior to joining the incoming administration and he was sympathetic to the British and the AIOC’s cause. Though democratic, the Mossadeq government with their oil nationalization program smelled of communism. Dulles (aided by his brother Allen) took on the cause of overthrowing the Iranian government. Code named Ajax, Dulles chose the great grandson of President Teddy Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt to initiate the coup. Hatched in the basement of the US embassy in Tehran, the overthrow of a democratic Iran succeeded and the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza was installed as the new dictatorship. The Shah of Iran ruled harshly until 1979 when the Islamic Revolution swept through the country led by the aging Ayatollah Khomeini. Among the acts initiated by the supporters of the fanatical religious leader; the takeover of the US embassy. Why? Because these new leaders believed the US would again try to oust the fledgling government from the basement of the embassy just as they did in 1953. The ramifications of Operation Ajax are profound. As the radical government of Iran takes hold in the months following the revolution, Saddam Hussein seizes the opportunity to invade Iran as he views incorrectly a weak oil rich neighbor. The Soviet Union, fearing a spread of radical Islam through their southern republics invaded Afghanistan to begin its halt there before it could infect its own possessions. The decade long war weakened the Soviet Union but in the process the US armed the mujahadeen, the very same militants which would become Al-Qaida and the Taliban. And now we are faced with a government in Iran that is politically hostile to the US and eyes a nuclear program. What would the climate be in the Middle East if we had just kept our grubby little hands to ourselves. Sometimes you must be weary of the unintended consequences. This seems to be a lesson that Americans have a tough time learning.

Details of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s new book are coming out and by all indications it offers a scathing recollection of his days in the White House.

His revelations about why Bush went to war in Iraq are especially telling:

In Iraq, McClellan added, Bush saw "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness, "something McClellan said Bush has said he believes is only available to wartime presidents.

The president’s real motivation for the war, he said, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by Saddam Hussein was needed because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East," McClellan wrote.

 AJC.com

On Bush’s leadership skills he writes:

"It strikes me today as an indication of his lack of inquisitiveness and his detrimental resistance to reflection, something his advisers needed to compensate for better than they did."

Bush misled U.S. on Iraq, former aide says in new book

Scott McClellan’s ‘What Happened’ delivers tough criticism of president, advisers

By KEN HERMAN
Cox News Service
Published on: 05/27/08

WASHINGTON — In a book due out Monday, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan offers a blistering review of the administration and concludes that his longtime boss misled the nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Read the Rest

The hot button in the Presidential race these days revolves around the new “GI Bill”. This bill gives us a window on the soul of those who are waging the so called “War on Terror”. By any measure Democratic Senator Jim Webb’s version of the bill (and co-sponsored by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel) is quite generous. It would allow any serviceman who completed three years of active duty (or activated reservists or national guard) the ability to be compensated for four years of public university tuition. Sen. and Republican nominee John McCain is against Webb’s bill. McCain, like Bush, believes the bill would cause military retention rates to decrease. Many of America’s finest have served three, four and five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan (and sometimes swapping between the two theaters) and those who rightfully engaged the enemy in Afghanistan and those who wrongly invaded Iraq are now denying those who have sacrificed the most the ability to brighten their future; a future that for as long as they were serving in harms way was always in doubt. A future for some involves a life without a leg or an arm. Shame on George Bush, shame on John McCain and shame on any politician who doesn’t stand up in Congress and give these boys (and girls) what they deserve. For McCain to use his lack of support of this bill as a means to attack Barack Obama (who supports this bill) for not serving in the military shows a lack of integrity; a word I would never have used to define McCain in the past. Jim Webb’s bill may have an opposite effect. The prospect of having a full paid college scholarship may very well cause a number of kids to sign up for the military. These would be men who aspire to be college graduates, just the type of people we would like to fill the ranks of the US military. Those who have put their lives on the line for this country are exactly those we want to replace the aging baby boomers in the workplaces throughout this country. Jim Webb’s GI Bill is a start but in my opinion they deserve way more than that. Unfortunately those who most wanted to wage these wars don’t see it that way.

Breaking:  Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary breaks ranks with President Bush in new book.

The words of Reverend Wright? No. Actually these are the sentiments of those radical White preachers. You know, the ones that had (or have) national audiences to spew their vitriol. It was the damn secularists teaming up with the radical eastern monotheists that caused 9/11.

Every politician has interesting bed fellows. By what rules are we playing? Why did McCain accept Falwell’s endorsement? It was done to garner votes from the religious right. When this story makes headlines, and it surely will, will McCain denounce Falwell and an eventual Pat Robertson endorsement? Stay tuned.

No one who is employed watches the main-stream media (MSM) more than I do. I often have it running as background noise while I eat, read, surf the net and even sleep. There is a great redundancy to the reporting. It really doesn’t matter where you obtain your news. Whether it is MSNBC at the left of the spectrum, CNN at center left or FOX on the right; when a fire engulfs a building in New York City there is a rhythm in which all three cut into the story, like a trio of dancing couples entering a vacant dance floor. On election coverage the rhythm of story repetition can be as rapid as a West Indies soca song. During lulls in the media wars there will be those stories of fair haired damsels brutally slain, or missing toddlers in remote locals and a suspected make and model of car for which to be on the lookout. But is there really a down cycle? My contention is the MSM has failed us. The stories Americans should be focused on receive only glancing blows unless there is carnage involved. When was the last time you heard a really in depth story about the war in Iraq?  I am talking about one where there are multiple reporters on the ground highlighting all the nuances of the conflict; interviews with sergeants, the facts about the demise of Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), the current strategy for victory and the assessment of progress. Al-Anbar is much safer now. Where are the reporters covering that story? It seems if the US is spending upwards of $1 trillion there, shouldn’t it be a priority of the media and America in general to care? And of course there is the forgotten war in Afghanistan; the staging ground for Bin Laden and his gang. With nations waffling on their commitment there, the forces engaged are insufficient. But we would not know that from our news. The internet is a great outlet for information about the conflicts but most Americans don’t have the time or desire to seek out such stories. Instead we endure an endless cycle of stories about why Obama’s campaign called Hillary a monster or why McCain lost his temper about a 2004 collaboration attempt by John Kerry or even worse why a pretty girl at UNC was slain. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not callous to the sorrow involved in the case but last I heard over 4000 Americans and countless Iraqis have died in Iraq and 3000 Americans are attempting to be avenged in Afghanistan. When a story of one person’s death gets twenty times more coverage than those that matter to all of us, the MSM has failed us.

The most unusual information floating around the blogosphere lately is the presidential election of 2009. That would be the presidential election in Afghanistan. As the situation in Iraq has improved in the past few months, the war in Afghanistan has deteriorated. Much of the blame for the recent setbacks there are being laid at the doorstep of the current president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai. The next election for president there is planned for 2009 and the one who is rumored to run against Karzai is the US Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad. Khalilzad was born in Afghanistan. The implications of having an American run the country of Afghanistan should make any of the readers here pause. This sounds like something that comes right out of the 19th century imperialism playbook. Granted, this is just a rumor but the prospect of having Zalmay Khalilzad as president of Afghanistan would have some interesting implications and sets up a plethora of unintended consequences for America’s war on terror. Our commitment in Iraq may be limited but our effort in Afghanistan will most likely be long term. If Khalilzad decides to throw his pakol (Afghani hat) into the ring, the pros and cons of his presidency will be fiercely debated by experts in the coming months.

A large part of me believes Joe Biden should be president. It is not going to happen, therefore I am left with second choices. In an article written by Reza Aslan he explains in detail why we need a president that comprehends the nuances of the Muslim world and outlines what it will take to alter that part of the world’s opinion of us. He doesn’t mention Biden but he certainly could have.

He Could Care Less About Obama’s Story-Reza Aslan

There is much talk about Iraq moving off American’s top issues for the 2008 election. American soldiers are still dying, just not like they were before the surge. Iraqis are still dying, just not like they were before the surge. And that is my good news. Juan Cole explains in his blog Informed Comment the situation away from the surge is not going well at all (click here)

_____________________________________________

Supporting Musharraf reminds me of American Foreign Policy during the Cold War. It wasn’t uncommon for the US to support any leader as long as they were anti-communist. The sentiment now is we support leaders as long as they are anti-terrorist. The President of Pakistan took the reigns of power via a military coup. It is always easier to support a pro-US dictator than it is to support an anti-American democratic leader. Look at the US intervention in Guatemala during the Eisenhower administration. One problem we have with General Musharraf is his government was actively supporting the Taliban and thus Al-Qaeda before 9-11 and we know now there are elements in his government that still share pro Al-Qaeda sentiments. Musharraf has changed his tune and has claimed to have “played ball” with the US. The biggest issue we have, however, is Musharraf has many reasons to not track down and kill Osama Bin Laden. Actually he has billions of reasons in the form of US dollars. If Al-Qaeda was neutralized in Pakistan the US would do what they always do. They would turn their attention elsewhere and take their checkbook with them. Musharraf receives billions of dollars in aid, much of it simply disappears into the oblivion of the corrupt Pakistani government infrastructure with little to show for it. The death of Bhutto has shone a nasty little light into the corner of the world where we should be most active. While the nation has been laboring over the Bush war in Iraq, our policy in the eastern recesses of the Middle East has been festering like a bad sore when the wrong medicine is used. It is a shame it took the death of Benazir Bhutto for the nation to reexamine our relationship with Musharraf and Pakistan but it is one that was a long time in coming. Perhaps the surge in Iraq didn’t allow the Iraqi government to get its act together. Rather, it allowed the US public to take a breath and to reassess its lack of attention to the region of the Middle East that brought us September 11.

“I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

            George W. Bush     September 14, 2001

More than likely it was Al-Qaeda that murdered Benazir Bhutto. Her death, however, reveals the weakness in our anti-terrorist strategy since 9-11. The venomous sector of Pakistan known as Waziristan has spread into the rest of the country. Al-Qaeda is alive and well there and in some ways that lawless corner of Pakistan has become the new Afghanistan; a haven for the jihadist group and a base from which to foment their extremist philosophy.

It was revealed tonight that Benazir Bhutto’s return to Pakistan was made possible through US diplomatic efforts. The purpose was to continue the Bush strategy of spreading liberal democracy throughout the region. Pakistan’s instability leaves little room for maneuver and led ultimately to the death of the one true champion of liberalism in the country. In chess terms, we led with our queen; a strategy that seldom works and usually forces you to play the game without your most valuable piece.

The strategy is much more flawed than just sending Bhutto into the snake pit. The best course of action would have been to get rid of the snakes first. The invasion of Iraq has been a harmful diversion on the war against Al-Qaeda. Everyone hails the fact that Al-Qaeda is being driven from Iraq but the terrorist organization was not there prior to 2003. Saddam Hussein’s demise and subsequent power vacuum led to a flood of terrorists into Mesopotamia.

The post-9/11 strategy should have been to go after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Waziristan with not only US forces but also the real coalition of the willing; the vast number of nations who were motivated to eliminate Al-Qaeda in the wake of the series of attacks that occurred in the US, Spain, Indonesia and London. People forget that even Iran was providing assistance in defeating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan on the basis these two groups were considered a Sunni menace by the Shia state of Iran.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto has left Pakistan more destabilized and, to make matters worse, there is no liberal figure in the country that can replace her. In a state that possess nuclear weapons and where Osama Bin Laden is viewed favorably, a crisis which would lead to the end of the Pervez Musharraf presidency would not only be bad for Pakistan, it would be dangerous for the world.

Related Links: Groups out to get her