|
Khan Meets Dems (WaPo columnist endorses yet another pro-Taliban Pakistani opposition member)
It's fascinating how Democrats aren't choosy about sidling up to America's enemies - it seems that any old enemy will do.Todays Washington Post features an op-ed on the upcoming Pakistani elections by Jackson Diehl entitled, "No More Coups." The piece slams Musharraf and praises the efforts of a visiting delegation of Pakistani politicians that prominently includes former cricket star Imran Khan. Khan heads what Diehl calls "his own small centrist party." According to Diehl, Khan said that Majority Leader Harry Reid and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden were particularly responsive to his anti-Musharraf message. So as head of a "centrist" party, what does Imran Khan see as the best policy for his country? To find out, read "How to save Pakistan," Khans own Op-Ed piece in the Guardian. I discussed this opinion piece by Khan in "The Best We Can Expect?" where I noted that Khan actually wants to break Pakistans strategic relationship with the United States, withdraw Pakistans army from the tribal areas, abandon patrols on Pakistans border with Afghanistan, and force America and NATO to withdraw from Afghanistan altogether. (Not a word about any of this from Diehl, of course.) You can glean some of this from Khans Guardian essay, but in fact that piece omits some important passages from the original version published in Pakistan. In the original version of Khans op-ed, he blames "the threat of extremism" on "policies that serve foreign interests" (i.e. U.S. interests) and goes on to say that no civilized society ought to allow its army to be "used so mercilessly against its own citizens" (i.e. the Taliban). Khan then adds: "The more the General [Musharraf] bows to Washingtons desire to do more...and the more innocent Pakistani blood is shed under the garb of fighting the war on terror or curbing extremism, the more Pakistan moves toward becoming a failed state." (So Pakistans decades-long problems of state-building are Americas fault.) In short, Imran Khan opposes the war on terror and would remove all military pressure from the Islamist sanctuaries in Pakistans northwest. Just days ago, terrorists trained and dispatched to Europe by Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud were captured before springing a wave of attacks across the continent. And just now Baitullah Mehsud and his Taliban forces are the targets of a significant offensive by the Pakistans army in South Waziristan (as I report here and here). We may want Musharraf to allow American troops to join the fight, but Imran Khan would do far less than Musharraf. Khan would never have launched the Pakistani offensive in the first place. In fact, Kahn would shut down the war on terror in Pakistan (and Afghanistan) altogether. Yet even now, Khan is being praised in the Washington Post as a "centrist" and catered to by Democratic leaders in Congress. The truth we dont want to face is that the Pakistani people are, shall we say, unenthusiastic about fighting the terrorists in their own country. Electing politicians like Imran Khan will lose us the war on terror, not solve it. Kahns notion that the likes of Baitullah Mehsud and his followers are "innocent blood" is absurd. Pakistan is harboring a substantial military force dedicated to the destruction of the United States and the West. That gives us every right to be involved. In fact, it gives us a right to invade, which weve prudently declined to do only because we have been able to establish a level of cooperation with the government of Pakistan. Yet we are at war with the Islamists taking refuge in Pakistan, and we had best not forget that. Americansincluding the Democratic leadership in the Senatemight want to keep this in mind when consorting with the likes of Imran Khan. Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-01-28 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=222052 |