US gets a hunting license in Pakistan?
posted at 8:13 am on July 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Did Pervez Musharraf give George Bush permission to launch attacks on Osama bin Laden in Pakistan without seeking approval for the mission first? According to Calcutta News, the Washington Post reported this — but I can’t find any reference to this in the Post. If true, it would solve the problem of tipping off al-Qaeda through its informers in Pakistan’s intel service:
It has been reported that President Pervez Musharraf granted the US the right to launch attacks on Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, without prior permission from Islamabad. …
The U.S. has options for sending special operations teams into Pakistan if bin Laden’s exact location is determined, but military officials said it would be a flying drone, not boots on the ground, that would be dispatched to kill the al Qaeda leader.
The drone could be airborne, or redirected in flight, in a matter of minutes. By not requesting Pakistan’s approval first, the U.S. would avoid the risk of breaching operational security.
If true, and that remains to be seen, it would essentially cut out the Pakistani military and intelligence from any knowledge of American actions until well after the completion of the mission. That would alleviate concerns over operational security, which killed one such effort when the forces required grew too large, causing Donald Rumsfeld to scrap it. The ISI could not warn Osama or his top lieutenants before a strike, at least not through diplomatic tip-offs such as the one given by the US when we attempted a missile strike in 1998 at the camps in Afghanistan.
This brings up some interesting possibilities. Has Musharraf split from the ISI? Has he decided to quietly act to undermine the policy of the Gilani government? Or has the Gilani government quietly warmed to Musharraf’s policy?
Yesterday, we spoke with Rep Thaddeus McCotter, who is traveling through Pakistan this week. He told us in a 30-minute interview that the new Pakistani government has begun to learn the lessons of dealing with terrorists, and that the political parties understood how critical it was to maintain good relations with the US. However, part of the problem is the impression that we want Pakistan to become in essence a mercenary force for the US instead of understanding this as a war against oppression and fascism. McCotter says that we have begun to emphasize that the Pakistanis have a vital interest in keeping the lunatics from oppressing Pakistanis as well as Afghans, Iraqis, and terrorizing the world — and that they have begun to understand that.
The hunting license may be one sign of that — if it really exists. Even if it doesn’t, the US won’t mind poaching.
Update: William Amos discovers that Calcutta News can’t tell the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times:
The United States has a standing agreement with Pakistan that CIA-operated Predator drones may strike Osama bin Laden’s hide-out without prior permission from Islamabad, according to people familiar with the arrangement.
One source said the free hand - an exception in a country politically sensitive to U.S. counterterrorism operations - was granted by President Pervez Musharraf early in the war if the U.S. locates bin Laden in Pakistan’s rugged tribal areas, where he is thought to be hiding.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
If this is twue, I hope we have bettew wuck than Ewmer Fudd.
Bigfoot on July 2, 2008 at 8:18 AM
I also checked for the post story. But again last night was a missile strike in Pakistan. That is the 3rd in as many days.
Something is escalating in Pakistan. Wish I had caught this story yesterday to ask Rep McCotter
William Amos on July 2, 2008 at 8:19 AM
I just saw the same story in the Washington Times e-edition
sabbahillel on July 2, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Go get him boy’s…And good luck to ya !!! Stay safe, and God Bless…
twiggman on July 2, 2008 at 8:26 AM
More than likely the Calcutta paper got the post and times confused.
William Amos on July 2, 2008 at 8:28 AM
We dont need no stinking hunting license.
doriangrey on July 2, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Sounds like they have an idea where he is…wouldn’t be surprised if this all ties into the drugs he needs, they have to have a way to get him these drugs…nothing like a little beacon in a pill box.
Hope they drag him out of hole dead…
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Wahhabit!
Thank you for that. My morning was made.
ej_pez on July 2, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Hey libs, human shields are urgently needed in Pakistan!
Taking volunteers, but this time there won’t be television cameras, and no VIP treatment in Baghdad like Saddam gave you a few years ago. But you do it out of principle, right? So let’s go! Who’s first?
Anyone?
Anyone?
jeff_from_mpls on July 2, 2008 at 8:51 AM
“Shhhh!
.
It’s Wahhabit hunting season.”
.
This is an outstanding line, Ed. Thanks.
Right_of_Attila on July 2, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Musharraf for VP!
Let’s be sure to give them more money for anti-aircraft guns. . . after all, Al Qaeda has such a formidable air force.
This has been the SOP in Pakistan for several years. It isn’t because Musharraf is so nice. It is because this is what we told him we were going to do. We strike in Pakistan, Musharraf says how outraged he is but then he does nothing. Of course, he couldn’t do anything if he wanted to fight back. It’s sort of like us saying if you are our enemy, we will kill you, but if you are our friend, we’ll give you money. What would you say? It doesn’t make Musharraf a great ally to do what everyone else would do - take the money instead of getting killed. This is how Islam is spread and maintained.
The Pentagon wanted to fight Al Qaeda in Pakistan just like they fought Russia. They give Pakistan money and tell them to fight. It didn’t work, it won’t work, it is a stupid idea.
America needs to fight its own battles and we wouldn’t drag it out so long. America should have taken the initiative in Tora Bora instead of allowing Pakistan AND MUSHARRAF to have control over sealing the Pakistani side of Tora Bora. If the USA had taken control of Tora Bora way back when, we would have killed Bin Laden then and been done.
The pentagon strategy under Bush has been disastrous. I support the military. I support the wars, but how they were carried out has been shameful. Musharraf and Pakistan have made us look like the paper tiger that they said we were. The whole world (especially Iran) is laughing at us because of how we handled the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
And all we want to do is talk about what a great guy and wonderful ally Musharraf is. Why don’t we break him off a little more somethin somethin for his trouble. Maybe a billion dollars will ease his pain. Taxpayers will be none the wiser.
ThackerAgency on July 2, 2008 at 9:01 AM
We didnt want to destabilize Mushariff to avoid pushing nukes into Islamic hands.
But Mushariff has destablized himself with his actions.
The best we can do is strike while we can.
William Amos on July 2, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Heh…”be vewy, vewy quiet!”
flipflop on July 2, 2008 at 9:07 AM
The nuclear weapons are already in Islamic hands in Pakistan. That’s the excuse for not actually fighting a war there. It is a poor excuse. We fought against Russia several times in several wars and they had nuclear weapons.
Pakistan could not deliver the nuclear weapons to America. Their nuclear arsenal is not a threat to us. That should not be a reason for us not to take care of our business there.
It seems like Musharraf hasn’t ever done anything to be upset about. There isn’t a politician in America that is as clean as you people seem to think Musharraf is. It is amazing to me that you people have been so fooled. Of course all you have to do is bastardize a verb (to evangelize) into a noun (evangelical) and most of the readers think it is a new group of people so I shouldn’t be surprised.
ThackerAgency on July 2, 2008 at 9:10 AM
You dont think that Pakistan couldnt launch a short range nuke at our troops in Afganistan ? Just because they cant hit the US itself doesnt mean that they couldnt hurt us.
OR they could have even gone to nuclear war with India and that certianly wasnt in our best interest.
William Amos on July 2, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Did someone say that want to hear some Drowning Pool?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 2, 2008 at 9:18 AM
What did Frodo and Sam ever do to you?
/sarc
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 2, 2008 at 9:19 AM
I thought Bush’s “You are either with us or against us” covered this in 2001, already.
profitsbeard on July 2, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Hey libs, human shields are urgently needed in Pakistan! … there won’t be television cameras … Anyone? - Jeff
Lib response:
*crickets chirping*
Tony737 on July 2, 2008 at 9:27 AM
“the impression that we want Pakistan to become in essence a mercenary force for the US”
NO NO NO,, what we need to drive home both to Pakistan and the rest of the world is this. Civilized nations can control/police what is inside their claimed borders IF NOT then those territories should not be considered part of their borders.
In the west we have radicals just like every nation on earth does but we do not let them go around starting wars by attacking other nations. If such a group did they would be rounded up and arrested by our own police/FBI.
The idiocy of allowing the Arab world to set the president that nations can be immune of responsibility for proxy groups attacking neighbors and other nations from the safety of the host nation has to be ended. Palestine, Hamas, Afghanistan pre 01′, Iraq pre 03′, Iran since 79′, Pakistan since early 80s’, Syria since 03′, Lebanon.
The west needs to find their balls.
C-Low on July 2, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Killing OBL at this point in the game will get a huge *whatevs* response from most in the US especially from the left side and their MSM propaganda machine will convince citizens in the middle of the same.
Too little too late. OBL is a Lose/Lose for the President.
Swinehound on July 2, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Well said.
Swinehound on July 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Duck season!
Wahhabit season!
Duck!!!!
Don’t you mean “Duck Season???”
(BOOM!!!!)
This explosion was brought to you by Northrup Grumman, Inc., makers of Global Hawk, the world’s finest Predator Drone attack aircraft!
Silly Wahhabit, your trix killed our kids.
Shirotayama on July 2, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Some of us agree. I’m of the opinion that trying to kill UBL now, actually has lower immediate strategic importance than pre-empting Iran’s nuclear weaponry.
Shirotayama on July 2, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Question.
If a Predator drone took out OBL on the opening day of the Democrat Convention in Denver, would the MSM file a report on his demise?
fogw on July 2, 2008 at 10:51 AM
This would be a good thing if (which is uncertain) Musharraf and the rest of the Pakistani government gave the US a tacit approval to attack in kill Bin Laden if he is found. As ThackerAgency said, Musharraf would feign being outraged and do nothing.
As much as it might please some to just march into Pakistan and be done with Al Qaeda (as Barack Obama said he would do) this little kabuki-dance with Pakistan is about the best we can do realistically. Not so much because of Pakistan’s nukes, but also because all the supply routes for our troops in Afghanistan run through (or over) Pakistan. If Pakistan cuts off the supply routes, our troops in Afghanistan become isolated sitting ducks.
Pakistan is not really our friend, but their government is willing to look the other way sometimes–which is better than having a nuclear-armed enemy.
Steve Z on July 2, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Wouldn’t it be ripe if we killed or captured Bin Laden during the Democrat Convention, perhaps right about the time when Obama is griping that Bush has been ineffective in finding him?
Tantor on July 2, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Hunting license? Wahhabit? Poaching? You’re really rolling out your A-game, Ed. Nice.
craig on July 2, 2008 at 11:45 AM
let’s hope the license covers duck season as well
whabbit season
duck season!
Money
jdsmith0021 on July 2, 2008 at 11:52 AM
OT: I am really impressed with Thad McCotter - is there any reason why he shouldn’t be considered for a VP spot??
HawaiiLwyr on July 2, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Just wrong, Ed. Funny, but wrong.
spmat on July 2, 2008 at 12:02 PM
The U.S. does not do a particularly super-hot job of control[ing]/polic[ing] its southern border. I am not, however, prepared to write if off and no longer claim it.
Your point about “…groups attacking neighbors and other nations from the safety of the host nation has to be ended” is right on the money, though. You did not go back quite far enough in your historical recitation, though: this was a lesson that I thought we had learned from Korea and Viet Nam. Give the enemy a sanctuary and you cannot defeat him. Failing to heed that is why we still have troops in Korea. That is what Nixon’s “secret” Cambodian and Laos bombings were all about. Yet, we have allowed that very circumstance to develop, and with a much more dangerous enemy: the Viet Minh were not seeking to export their revolution.
Pakistan would not cut our supply routes. They are not strong enough to do so, the operations would be too remote for them to sustain, and the graft for goods passage is far too lucrative to interrupt. Harrass, yes. Cut, no.
ss396 on July 2, 2008 at 12:30 PM
We should wait until he dies from kidney failure, then bomb the funeral procession. Saves money on future bombings.
roninacreage on July 2, 2008 at 12:44 PM
TAKE NO PRISONERS!
byteshredder on July 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I like it. :)
aengus on July 2, 2008 at 8:56 PM