Pakistan's Perez Musharrif has been quoted as saying Richard
Armitage told him that if Pakistan didn't cooperate in the War on
Terror that his country would be bombed and that he should
"...prepare for the stone age." Years later as U.S. President
Bush prepares to consult with Musharrif and Afghanistan's President
Karzai, a squabble has emerged on who is letting former Taliban live
with near impunity in a very mountainous region perched on the border
of the two countries. Is Osama there? Would carpet bombing
the area in 2001 have ended Bin Laden's reign real quick? Is
Osama still alive? Do we even care?
First let's get
to the heart of the "bomb you back to the stoneage" comment 1,2,3,4.
Anyone around hawks for any period of time is bound to hear that choice
of words in any number of variations. It is a knee-jerk verbal
symptom of a brain fart that hawks will invariably utter at
provocation. It's been heard in response to every major crisis
since the
1950s. "We'll bomb 'em back to the stoneage." That
Richard Armitage might say it is a surprise. More
likely a low level functionary said it and somehow it got attributed to
Armitage. Or maybe Dick was frustrated and said it and Musharrif,
not your most clever of national leaders took him seriously. Or
Armitage might have said, "there are people in my country who think I
should be telling you we'll bomb you back into the stoneage...the folks
at home are pretty pissed off." and the translator screwed it up.
That kind of thing happens far too often than politicians want to
admit.
The point is, perhaps the hawkish expression hides a frustration that
does not sit well on the leaders of the most powerful nation in
world. There are plenty of people in this country who'd like to
just lash out at our so called allies and put a little "gettie-up in
their step." After all its been five years!
For five years, Pakistan and Afghanistan have been the owners of a
dubious honor. Somewhere between their two countries, Osama Bin
Laden and a bunch of Taliban remnants have been stirring up trouble in
both countries. From Pakistani Militant Islamic Jihadists --
let's call them MIJs, to Al Qaeda's leadership, the two countries have
little to brag about in their level of cooperation in the War on
Terror. Far too many "coincidental" reports of terrorist
background and aid from Pakistan have crossed our desk to be
ignored. Pakistan is a major source of pliant Islamic Jihadists
used in the grist mill of the Al Qaeda death machine. One only
supposes that if they needed a place to hide, they'd go find Osama's
hideout perched in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Some hawks will also come up with, "Boy if there ever was a time to
test out a tactical nuclear weapon." They really don't mean it,
but it does show the frustration level. Wouldn't a tactical nuke
play holy hell with the mountain ranges? Isn't there some way to
flatten Bin Laden and the remains of the Taliban once and for
all? One can see how such thoughts cross the mind of our lesser
disciplined colleagues.
However, the reality of life is far more depressing than the frustrated
uttering of angry U.S. hawks. There probably is no way to go
into that region of the world and expect to flush out Bin Laden, short
of sending in Divisions of mountain goats. It is reasonable to
expect Musharrif to want to take care of the problem, but does he have
trained anti-terrorist mountain climbers? Probably not. A
few ex-Mujahadeen who have not be drawn over to Bin Laden's dark side,
perhaps. But truthfully, probably not enough in the way of a
punitive force that could scour the mountains for Al Qaeda's leadership
and a handful of followers and couriers. And nukes wouldn't do it
either...just make a bigger mess of the whole thing. And then the
environmentalist - Oai Vei!
No, the reality is that the little operation known as the leadership of
Al Qaeda was never that large to begin with. You have to
understand how pervasively evil the terrorist network was and is
today. A few nutcases like Bin Laden speak so called profound
utterances to the faithful and off they go to kill thousands of
Americans. It's not like the former Soviet Union where
orders are cut and a giant military bureaucracy grinds into motion.
Al Qaeda means "the base" in most translations we've heard. It is
a loosely (very loose in most cases) conglomeration of wild eyed
Militant Islamic Jihadists who want to kill every infidel and in
Osama's case that also includes the leaders of his former home, the
Saud family. There is some history there that tends to be ignored.
In any case, every nutcase Jihadist who wants to make his bones will go
out and kill some innocents and then claim their newly founded
organization is part of Al Qaeda. It's the twenty-first century
version of Macho, and can be traced to Middle Eastern tribalism that
goes back to well before the Crusades. History repeating itself
is a common problem and we are living through such a period. It
is also a lot like the Mob. Make your bones by killing someone
and you are set up with the big guys in Chicago. In this new
case, the Middle Eastern version is to kill a busload of Jews and you
can attribute your particular band of denizens to Al Qaeda. Maybe
Osama will reference you or your gang by name!
The point of this long winded exercise is this. Do we really care
if Bin Laden himself is dead or alive? We could. Many
believe his regular messages out of the mountains inspire some idiots
to begin planning their next deathtrap for innocents. Some
believe he continues to serve as inspiration to the Jihadists in Iraq
as well. And by the way if you think Iraq is involved in civil
war, you are dead wrong. They are involved in religious
zealot wars that simply reflect a return to where that country was
before Saddam powered his way to control. The presence of the
U.S. is simply an excuse to do what they were doing decades ago.
Muslims killing Muslims, while denied by those of the Islamic faith, is
a sad fact of life throughout the region's history. Ever hear of
the Iran-Iraq war? What is going on in Iraq right now is more
related to that war than the U.S. Presence.
One would suppose that finding Bin Laden and killing him would probably
be a big step in the
right direction. Even Bill Clinton 5
wanted to get him...he claims he did more than anyone has before or
since. However killing Bid Laden really isn't all that
important. Some
yahoo will just show up to replace him, and might even be a little more
inspirational than a self appointed militant jihadist
leader dying of a disease only treatable with dialysis. Maybe his
doctor friend will take over the reigns of Al
Qaeda and we'll be right back where we started. The point here is
that
while the so called leaders make good targets, it is the organization's
people that are the real problem.
From Pakistan to the Moro Sea, there are plenty of nutcases wearing the
mask of Islam that give the Muslim religion a bad name. When in
reality it is a mindset created in the virulent Madrasses that is the
big problem, not the leadership. We have thousands upon thousands
of Muslims being taught concepts and believes from the 4th century and
from a portion of the Koran that is being interpreted all wrong.
These are the raw material of the Jihad. The nutcase fringe of
Islam called Salafiyya is the problem here, not your every day Muslim
who bows to the east every afternoon.
But now we are into the world of separating religion from ideology and
no liberal worth their salt will go anywhere near that debate. And
unfortunately, the World is full of liberals skirting the real issues
in this arena.
And thus we arrive at the key issue. If you can't differentiate
between religion and ideology, if your own mindset had difficulty
dealing with profiling your enemy simply because a) profiling is evil
or b) profiling based on religion is doubly evil, then you are finished
before you start.
The over-sensitivity to religion and racism worldwide is the
problem. I recently had the opportunity to find the song "There
are no monkeys with tails in Zamboanga". The ditty was sung by
the Duke in a cute movie about Polynesia and all of a sudden one day it
popped right into my head and I couldn't get it out. I wondered
what was the source of the ditty and Googled. Within five hits I
had the site that discusses the origin of the song. Complete with
several opinions that it was ugly racism rearing its head -- equating
native Filopino climbing trees to monkeys without tails. More
likely it was a case of innocent envy -- I too wished I could climb a
tree like that" or some such. In any case, the site had people
saying John Wane and the producers of Donavan's Reef were racists,
etc., etc. Sigh. Revisionist historians at work
again. Next we'll hear that John Wayne and Lee Marvin were gay
and humping behind scenery during the shooting. That's how
ridiculous our own fringe has become of late.
Back to the point. If you can't carpet bomb the mountains between
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons is
also off the plate, then how are you ever going to get Bin
Laden? You don't. Forget it. Some wide-eyed follower
will step in and we'll probably be worse off. Let's go after the
root of the problem, the followers, the new recruits and the hidden
evil that breeds them.
Now our liberal friends would have us go change the deplorable economic
conditions of the raw material in the Middle East. Unfortunately,
as we've seen over that few years, the conditions for many Muslims in
Europe, while comfortable compared to some living in Pakistan, are
still not all that great. Unemployment, poverty wages and less
than adequate welfare systems have breed a pessimistic apathy amongst
Muslim immigrants all through Europe, and the radicals are exploiting
it to the max. Europe is already beginning to feel the effects of
a vast Muslim immigration as the Jihdists inspire a few wretched idiots
to strap on bombs or carry them in backpacks aboard trains. Or
better yet, try to build a liquid explosives to carry onto
airplanes...Sigh again. If Liberalized Europe can't even fix it
for the Muslims within their own borders, what makes anyone think they
can do it in the Middle East. This is not a problem fixable by
the U.S. or the Europeans. The source of recruits for radical
Islam comes from Muslim countries...in the Middle East or the South
China Sea (Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines). The Saudis can lead
this change, but even after five years of being ground on by U.S.
diplomats, not much has changed..
It's hard to understand for most of us. And while we might admit
that it is no fun being unemployed, living on
less than poverty income or being marginalized because you can't afford
taxi-fare or a nice new suit, that is no reason to go out and kill
people. No, the
problem is a mindset that allows one to seriously consider that
possibility -- killing innocents to prove your point. We need to
eliminate the mindset that produces a ready force of instigators with
guns and ammo, vests
and explosives, targets and tactics all focused on killing
non-combatants. Ridding ourselves of that lunacy is what we need
to focus on.
Somebody in the Muslim community is going to have to emerge who will
change the direction of the Islamic religion. Not for the masses
who don't pick up Khalishnikovs and go around shooting innocents, but
for the minority that get caught up in radicalism and serve as the
recruits for the latest craze, killing anyone who says boo about the
Middle East peace process or wants a democratic Iraq.
We need the Billy Graham of Islam to get up and start telling Muslims
that killing infidels or Muslims who don't agree with you is
evil. We need somebody who is charismatic and easy to follow to
emerge who will parlay with the Saudis and completely shutdown the
export of religious training that says kill instead of integrate.
Be a force for good in the world instead of a force for evil. Is
that so hard to imagine? Is that leader so hard to find? It
defies logic, but there it is. We don't have a Muslim leader
setting the example AND actively delivering a message of good in the
Arab world. No wonder red necks in America want to nuke the hills
of Afghanistan and Pakistan!
Let's not focus on killing off Bin Laden, he's dying already. Let's
focus on motivating one of our so called allies to stand up and start
actively changing the image of Islam, and inciting young Muslims to
improving the world instead of blowing it up. Let's find someone
who will convince Muslims it is not a duty to wear a vest of explosives
and go kill Jews by the busload. Let's make it
popular in the Arab street to wear blue jeans, not blow up the
factories, workers and shoppers at the clothing store. Muslims
shouldn't wear blue jeans? Oh come on now!
Update:
October 29, 2006: Pakistani officials attacked a Madrassa in the mountainous region
between Afghanistan and Pakistan, claiming to have killed a number of
militants hiding out there, suspecting them of having al-Qaeda
connections. Whom was killed is not known. This is in the same area of
a similar strike last year. 6
September 29, 2006:
It appears the issue of finding and killing Osama has become intermixed
with destroying Al Qaeda as if the two are dependent on the
other. They are
not, either task could be accomplished and the other remain on the "to
do list". However that does not keep the two parties from
squabbling over who
did enough or did not do enough to accomplish either goal.
All the major alphabet soup networks, newpapers as well as CNN, MSNBC
and FOX have over the last few days focused on comparing the heavy
hitters
in either party as they take up the challenge to voice which party is
to blame. Some papers and online services have photos of Bush,
Clinton, Condi Rice, and Hillary Clinton with the text of their
"sound-bites" displayed. The major media seems transfixed on the
battle, and little is being said of import.
However, at one point, President Bush noted that all this furor is not
productive, saying in effect that everyone should be focused on what we
are doing now. 5
