Obama Campaign Addresses NY Times Report on Al-Qaida Growth in Pakistan

Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice and former CIA officer Bruce Reidel launched a conference call today to address the failure of the Bush administration's approach toward Pakistan and the recently reported safe haven that exists in the country for Al Qaida.

The article on the existing Pakistan bases appeared today in the New York Times and tells of the rising number of Al Qaida operatives being trained in the region:

"Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terrorist camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States. Officials say the new camps are smaller than the ones the group used prior to 2001. However, despite dozens of American missile strikes in Pakistan since 2002, one retired C.I.A. officer estimated that the makeshift training compounds now have as many as 2,000 local and foreign militants, up from several hundred three years ago," the article states.

During the call, Rice and Reidel said Sen. Obama, as president would focus on a multi-layered economic approach that could possibly draw in help from NATO to defeat the Al Qaida presence in Pakistan.

Rice was clear to pinpoint John McCain's support of the Bush policies toward the region and called McCain's support "poor judgement."

"We have 5 times the troop levels we have in Afghanistan in Iraq, yet John McCain wants to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely," said Rice.

She added that by demonstrating economic assistance to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the U.S. would be "in a better position to leverage comparable contributions from NATO."

"The heart of the terrorist threat has always been in Afganistan and Pakistan border," Reidel said.

However, there appeared some defense from Rice and Reidel on comments Obama made last summer on "actionable intelligence" and when and if he, as president would act to make a strike on Al Qaida targets in Pakistan with or without the permission of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Rice called Obama's words "a new approach" and highlighted that he was the only candidate at the time to make such a statement on U.S. policy. Rice added that Obama's plan includes a commitment to an additional 2 combat brigades in Pakistan.

Rice and Reidel responded to a reporter's question on whether or not the NY Times article itself in their opinion constituted "actionable intelligence". Both disagreed.

"It's not the kind of intelligence that tells you where you can drop a bomb," responded Reidel. Rice responded to the question saying, "actionable intelligence is widely understood to mean time and place specific."

-Christine Modern English

Comments

[Sara]

That NYT article was great! Not only was it a great account/analysis of the situation, but in several places, it specifically stated that the war in Iraq was directly responsible for the ability of al Qaeda to regroup to pre-9/11 strength in Pakistan. I believe the article even used the word "failure" to describe the approach and lack of strategy of the Bush administration...it was nice to actually see some part of the MSM take notice of this...if only other outlets would as well.

[John Maszka]

In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France. After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs.

These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today.

Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India.

Over the years of America's on again- off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia ... etc., etc., etc.,

Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal.

I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?

The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn't very smart. We all agree that slavery in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is wrong as well?