Hi John,
I wasn't privy to the conversation between the Pakistani leadership and our own, so I can only conjecture. It has been portrayed in the Telegraph as less than a gentlemanly tete a tete. More of a unilateral dictum. I can find this to be a distinct possibility. I merely hope to point out that the Pakistani president has no overwelming mandate right now, as does our President, and that this could throw things into considerable chaos as this invasion plan unfolds.
If we are to list the countries with which we hope to be at war, counting all that harbor, aid, abet or tolerate or shelter ANY terrorists then I'd suggest this as a starting point:
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
un.org
I'm not certain of Andorra, Antigua or Australia, but I think you get my point. This is a huge diffuse, intractable problem and I'm hoping that the actions taken by our government reflect the immense complexity of the problem at hand.
Anyone who thinks about it realizes that the secret cells hiding out in Germany and France are eventually going to perform their mischief. Angering them, or not angering them, will not change their objectives.
I'm not absolutely certain I agree with you on this. While Bin Laden was once a U.S. ally, he became an avowed enemy of the U.S. when we decided to leave some of our forces within Saudi Arabia after the end of hostilities in the Gulf War. He has pointed out that the U.S. did not honor it's word that the military forces there would be only on a "temporary basis". Though the die is cast and there is no way we will ever know, I do wonder if the USS Cole would have been attacked or if the WTC would be rubble if Bin Laden hadn't been presented such an incendiary insult to Islam allowing him to foment the hatred of those who would join him.
Regards, Ray |
