PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND: when i read this in today's wall street journal, i almost died. does not this prove that this administration has chosen to appease musharaf and the taliban, and instead had an OPTIONAL WAR IN IRAQ. i think we should explain it this way. the true 9.11.01 perps are known to be in these lands and our administration has appeased the leader of the country that protects them. how do we get this to be explained to the country that does not read the wall street journal. please help. any and all input would be appreciated. in memory of our fallen brothers and sisters on 9.11.01. never forget, and never appease.
PLEASE SEE THE WSJ OP/ED PIECE BELOW
Pakistan's Sovereignty
October 25, 2006; Page A14
Our finest foreign-policy minds have been abuzz lately trying explain how and why the U.S. and its NATO allies are, as a recent Newsweek International cover has it, "Losing Afghanistan." But no need for deep thoughts here: The largest part of the problem is neighboring Pakistan.
In September, the Pakistan government of Pervez Musharraf agreed to abandon its North Waziristan province -- which shares a long border with Afghanistan -- to the de facto rule of its "tribal elders" and the Taliban and mujahadeen terrorists they harbor. Since then, as Barnett Rubin observes nearby, the number of cross-border raids into Afghanistan has risen threefold.
It's true that the agreement the Pakistan government signed with these elders explicitly forbids such raids. But General Musharraf surely knew that the Taliban would not keep idle in Waziristan for long, especially since he also agreed to the release and pardon of all Taliban prisoners and the return of their confiscated weapons.
From day one in the war on terror, the Bush Administration has said it would make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them. So far, Mr. Musharraf has earned an exception to this rule by helping to capture al Qaeda suspects early on, and then by pleading that his government cannot control its unruly tribal areas. But then he cannot also refuse to allow NATO troops and U.S. Predator missiles to do the job for him.
We don't know what General Musharraf promised President Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai during their recent conclave in the White House. But we hope it was more tangible cooperation than we have been seeing of late. Sovereignty has responsibilities, and General Musharraf is not exercising them.
Sponsored by
Return To Top
Log Out Contact Us Help Email Setup My Account/Billing Customer Service: Online | Print
Privacy Policy Subscriber Agreement & Terms of Use Mobile Devices RSS Feeds
News Licensing Advertising About Dow Jones
Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved