Pakistani general refusing to cut ties with “militants”

posted at 8:48 am on May 13, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The Pakistani government, military, and intelligence service all claim to be outraged over the decision by Barack Obama to keep them in the dark on the mission to get Osama bin Laden.  In response, their military chief has decided to, er, not cut ties with terrorists:

The United States will now push harder than ever for General Kayani to break relations with other militant leaders who American officials believe are hiding in Pakistan, with the support of the military and intelligence service, a senior American official said.

These leaders include Mullah Muhammad Omar, the spiritual leader of the Afghan Taliban; the allied militant network of Sirajuddin Haqqani; and Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group that the United States holds responsible for the terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, in 2008, the American official said. …

But those who have spoken with General Kayani recently said that demands to break with top militant leaders were likely to be too much for the military chief, who is scheduled to address an unusual, closed-door joint session of Parliament on Friday to salvage his reputation and explain the military’s lapses surrounding the American raid.

The American wish list is tantamount to an overnight transformation of Pakistan’s long held strategic posture that calls for using the militant groups as proxies against Pakistan’s neighbors, they said. It comes as General Kayani faces mounting anti-American pressure from hard-line generals in his top command, two of the people who met with him said.

Many in the lower ranks of the military have greater sympathy for the militant groups than for the United States.

Um, yeah, we knew that already, guys.  That’s why you didn’t get the call on May 1st.  Thanks for making that clear and making the American government look like geniuses.

Pakistan is going to have to choose between American financial support and their terrorist pals.  We cannot keep supporting a government that not only covertly works with Mullah Omar and Sirajuddin Haqqani, but openly supports them and the terrorist group that conducted the Mumbai Massacre.  If Pakistan wants to side with the terrorists, we shouldn’t be providing any more funding for their military.

However, let’s be clear on what that means, and that clarity starts with a map of the region.  We don’t have any reliable lines of communication to Afghanistan without Pakistani cooperation.  We would certainly try upping our traffic through the north, primarily through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, but Russia would have a great deal more influence on those routes and has made it clear in the past that they will play hardball with the US to allow American operations in either country.  To the west is Iran; to the east, China.  Don’t expect either nation to suddenly warm up to American military exercises in their back yards.

Jettisoning our Pakistani alliance would mean the end of the mission in Afghanistan, and likely the end of the Karzai government.  Pakistan and Kayani would waste little time in pushing a Pashtun coup, with Haqqani and Mullah Omar running the show in Kabul all over again.  The Pakistanis liked having hard-line Islamists in charge as a bulwark against what they perceive as their greatest security threat in India. The problem for the Pakistanis is that their little Islamist monster is just as likely to turn around and eat them next, especially if they lose American support — or failing that, the military will seize power once the the Islamist threat gives them enough of an excuse to do so.

This is a problem for both the US and Pakistan.  They are rightfully angered by the US invasion to get bin Laden, but the Pakistanis gave us no choice in the matter thanks to their double-dealing with the terrorist groups we’re fighting in Afghanistan.  If they want to get serious, we’re ready to help, but we cannot keep funding a government that gives shelter to the likes of bin Laden, Omar, and Haqqani.

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

If any of these ‘honorable’ people belong to you be certain to send them your love.

DannoJyd on March 8, 2013 at 4:32 AM

Now you know how it feels to live in the People’s Republic of Newyork where not only do they betray you, they don’t even care you are there.

Mr. Grump on March 8, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Graham was willing to philibuster CIA lead nomination until he got more answers on Obama’s utter failure to keep Americans safe in Benghazi…yet insults a fellow Senator for being willing to philibuster over getting the answer from Obama/holder regarding Constitutionality of killing Americans on American soil using drones?! What the h#ll?!

As far as McCain goes – the man was a hero, & I’ll never criticize him for his military service. As far as him as a politician, the guy has been a FLAMING RHINO, conservative-betraying, senile old f@rt who has needed to go for some time!
– Holder refused to answer whether it was Constitutional to use drones to kill Americans on American soil without Due Process – he said doing so was ‘Inappropriate’. Issa pointed out, “I am not asking you if it is a matter of being ‘appropriate’ – I asked if it was Constitutional.” Holder refused to answer until AFTEr Paul’s obviously SUCCESSFUL philibuster!

Seeing as how Graham & McCain got NO real answers/justice from the White House about Fast-&-Furious, the Pension Scandal during the auto bailout, or about Benghazi while Paul forced the administration to finally answer about the Drone Strike on US Soil issue, I would say the ‘score’ is ‘Paul – 1, Graham/McCain – 0′. Perhaps it is ENVY/Jealousy over this Freshman being willing to go ‘Old School’ & SUCCEEDING while their constant caving in, timidity, & RHINO SOP has failed to deliver time and again.

The ‘Good Ol’ Boys’ just got showed up by the youg kid – they are threatened, & this is how they try to beat down ‘new blood’, trying to get them to fall into line with the same old Washington BS!

(BTW, I wrote Graham a letter regarding immigration several years ago. He responded by sending me a letter back saying, “The Immigration issue is an incredibly complicated issue, too complicated for most Americans to comprehend, and one that should probably be left to my colleagues.”
– WHAT AN ELITIST, SNOBBISH PR!CK! Like almost EVERY LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE, Graham demonstrated how he believes he is a lot more smarter than all of us, that we are a bunch of ignorant rednecks clinging to our guns and religion… who are just to stupid to figure out that securing our borders, REFUSING to give illegals anything, & enforcing our laws – Like Arizona – is more of an answer than doing nothing & granting amnesty. For that answer alone, Graham has proved his arse needs to be ‘shown the door’!

easyt65 on March 8, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Between this and Mccain, I must say I now consider RINOs to be nearly as much a problem as the Democrats themselves. Rand Paul was in the right of it, caught the country’s imagination, and spoke truth to power. We need more stuff like that.

As for these old elephants who enabled the President and stop at nothing to increase executive power — thank you for your service, but I’m done voting for people just because they have an R after their name. I’m tired of old men who promise us the same thing Obama does, just slower. I’ll vote Republican or Libertarian, not Democrat-Lite.

pendell2 on March 8, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Didn’t happen, but I also don’t think Paul’s stand presages any tidal shift in the Republican caucus.

I also think Hostess is not in trouble of going bankrupt.

Varchild on March 8, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Can you say STRAW MAN boys and girls?

It’s not an “isolationist” view of the WOT in the first place. And, in the second place, it is actually the CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF FOREIGN POLICY! That is, until the neo-liberal interventionists and their neo-con counterparts–actually perverted the classical conservative viewpoint of non-interventionism!

So, you have it exactly BACKWARDS. Lindsay Graham and John McCain are global interventionists and neo-liberals/neo-cons; Rand Paul is the CONSERVATIVE.

mountainaires on March 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Not everything that appears to be a double standard actually is. It’s especially not a double standard when you’re asked all the time to use the logic that their guy is morally superior to “yours”. However, outrage that the previous administration had done something unconscionable by the current, which threatened to make us another Banana Republic by prosecuting those parties who thought different, demonstrate a different pattern of tolerance for “administrative discretion” which we find, in the words of the 2008 campaign, was “out of line with our values”.

In addition when that president widens the range of something that was considered almost a war crime under the “bad president”, we are allowed to reevaluate. When it expands to “suspected” US citizens and then to US soil, it’s something different.

Axeman on March 8, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Wow Obama must have given them one hell of a dinner date to back stab one of their members like this.. I wonder if they got a kiss at the door or better?

SGinNC on March 8, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Funny how you guys didn’t worry about drones under Bush

Ummm, Lindsey. When did Bush announce he wanted use drones in the US? When did Bush use a drone to assassinate a US citizen?

If he did I’m certain he would have gotten some criticism from some Republicans, especially from the more libertarian wing. Once it became obvious things in Iraq weren’t working out as well as everyone hoped Bush started getting a lot of criticism from people on the right.

farsighted on March 8, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Did Graham name names? If not he needs to name names or shut up. This broad brushed “you guys” is cowardly grand standing.

farsighted on March 8, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Graham can just shut his mouth. Bush never once that I can remember ever suggested he was going to drone ambush american citizens suspected of being terrorists without some due process.

That Graham even hints at this is ridiculous. SC – get him the h*ll out of the Senate.

Zomcon JEM on March 8, 2013 at 11:42 AM

H*ll – I don’t ever remember the idea of drone strikes on US citizens ever coming up at all – due process or not>

Zomcon JEM on March 8, 2013 at 11:44 AM

This is about GOP leadership not principle. Graham and McCain were out schmoozing with Obama and the new leaders of the senate appeared in their place.

People can tell the difference between a real political debate and the rope-a-dope financial-crisis/immigration-crisis/gun-control-crisis theatre that the current “leaders” have been conducting.

It’s way overdue for a GOP leadership overhaul. Thanks to Cruz and Paul, it may be starting.

virgo on March 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Funny how you guys didn’t worry about drones under Bush

Ummm, Lindsey. When did Bush announce he wanted use drones in the US? When did Bush use a drone to assassinate a US citizen?

If he did I’m certain he would have gotten some criticism from some Republicans, especially from the more libertarian wing. Once it became obvious things in Iraq weren’t working out as well as everyone hoped Bush started getting a lot of criticism from people on the right.

farsighted on March 8, 2013 at 11:36 AM

And I’m sure that if Bush was asked if it was constitutional to use a US drone against a US citizen in the US, it would have taken nanoseconds to answer “NO!”, not some 30 min. of legalize contortions.
And, for you conspiracy guys, within that question is DogEater’s out. What if he allows a foreign country to use their drones on US citizens in the US?

gonnjos on March 8, 2013 at 2:00 PM

I am so pissed at these two. Nothing like giving ammunition to the enemy press about one of your own Party. I’m just flabbergasted…

sandee on March 7, 2013 at 4:22 PM

That’s been McCain’s career! Every time the Dem media wants to make a point, and it’s not working with just liberal voices, they just bring on The Maverick to stab his own party in the back again and again and again.

What’s funny is that he was personally hurt that the media turned their back on him in 2008. I suspected as much, and recently he came out and said it.

Axeman on March 8, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Mr. Grump on March 8, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Sir, I USED to live in the democrat stronghold of ChiTcago, now known as the murder capital of America. I know how it feels to be ignored by the Communists, and that is why I moved out of the state over 20 years ago.

DannoJyd on March 9, 2013 at 1:53 AM

This is a fair statement. I think a large majority of informed voters were puzzled that unemployment could be that bad, NSA surveillance increased, the economy still not recovered, gold prices still extremely high (not that people know what it relates to, but still), etc., and he could still get so many American Idol folks off the couch to vote for him.

rogerb on March 8, 2013 at 7:48 AM

Actually I posted the MANY reasons for why Romneycare Mittens would lose last April here in Hot Air, so I knew going in that my task as a grass roots volunteer would be largely wasted.

As this adds to your topic:

As the publication notes, many pundits attribute the lack of enthusiasm on the right over Mitt Romney’s candidacy to Romney’s and the Republican establishment’s snub of Palin and the Tea Party that won the GOP its House majority in 2010. The Republican establishment advisers were fearful of what their mainstream media bettors would think of them if they embraced the vice presidential candidate who has galvanized the Tea Party and the conservative base more than any other figure on the right over the last four years.

Having not learned their lesson, establishment Republicans, BizPacReview notes, “continue to attack Palin for no apparent reason.“

With so few GOP supporters working at the grass roots we can expect to see repeat loses as long as Americans refuse to get at all involved.

DannoJyd on March 9, 2013 at 2:00 AM

While Graham and his pals like John McCain were genuflecting before the president, Rand Paul was filibustering on the Senate floor, accompanied by Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. The difference between the old guard and the new guard of the GOP has never been so clear.
Graham continued, “The discussions with the President about our long-term budget problems were candid and differences in philosophy were apparent. However, also apparent was common ground on how to move forward.”

In lockstep with Obama, one would presume.

DannoJyd on March 9, 2013 at 2:10 AM

Gee Lindsey, it’s funny how I never remembered Bush trying to claim through his subordinates that he had the power to unilaterally order the assassination of US citizens at any time, any place and for whatever reason he deemed necessary, with no explanation and no due process.

Gator Country on March 9, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Ahhh isn’t it precious how the little neo-neo-con Alahpundit jumps into the fray to butress poor little neo-con tool Miss Lindsey. I have to say the new media shills are little better than the old dead media shills which is why I rarely bother to read Hot Air any more.

el Vaquero on March 10, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Maverick: One who trades away his constituents and Americans rights to the opposition for personal power.
How does that sum it up?

rgranger on March 10, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Does Ms. Lindsay realize that Paul, Cruz, Toomey, Rubio, Johnson, Scott, and Lee weren’t even in federal office at the time?

blammm on March 11, 2013 at 9:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4