namely, the hypothesis that if only the US had not fought a war in Iraq, it could have presented OBL from setting up bases in Pakistan.
Yes.. it's dysfunctional logic... Bin Ladin is alive because the Pakistanis do not have sovereign control over the area where Bin Ladin has taken shelter (that is assuming he's still alive and Zawahiri hasn't taken the reins of power).
But the article presumes that somehow we could force Pakistan to permit us to invade their uncontrolled territory in order to hunt for UBL, and that's just preposterous.
Bottom line, the only people who can deal with UBL and Zawahiri, and the rest of the Jihadist network in Pakistan are the Pakistanis.
What WE can do is continue to ensure that Al Qai'da has to defend it's "turf" by working to create reform in the Mid-East. Al Qai'da will be forced to continue attacking other Muslims, and that can only resort in their losing total credibility as a force for promoting Islamic dominance.
Btw, the author of that article, despite his 29 years with the agency, fails to note the significant changes that have recently occurred in Western Iraq, where many of the Sunni tribes have banded together to confront Al Qai'da.
He also fails to note the recent discovery of significant oil reserves in Western Iraq, which some believe will double Iraq's known reserves. But that oil isn't going to be exploited so long as Al Qai'da is present.
Secondly, his analysis about Afghanistan is flawed, IMO. The US national interest is FAR more focused on the Persian Gulf than it is in the desolate mountains of Afghanistan. If any nation has an interest there, it's India, Russia, and China.
It's possible that some of the recent events in Pakistan are giving the Iranians pause about their continued support for disrupting Iraq. They really might find themselves heavily dependent upon US support in dealing with Pakistan, with which is shares a significant border. (this is just a hunch, on my part).
Hawk |
