A little sleep usually does wonders, but not today.
Yesterday’s story about Pakistan, and how it views Osama bin Laden as a result of its truce with the Taleban, is murkier yet, as the press attempts to make sense of the tangled mess.
The Times Online reports that the negotiations are actually a trap for the Taleban:
A key provision of the deal is that tribesmen will expel foreign fighters from the area. The region is believed to be a haven for al-Qaeda fighters and members of the former Taleban regime in Afghanistan. Without a base in Pakistan their operations could be seriously disrupted.
“Expel foreign fighters” would seem to be rather stronger than this version from the Pakistan Dawn implies:
The agreement envisages that the foreigners living in North Waziristan will have to leave Pakistan but those who cannot leave will be allowed to live peacefully, respecting the law of the land and the agreement.
Clearly, Pakistan is in a pickle, and they’re scrambling this morning to clarify how this applies to Osama:
Pakistan said Wednesday that a peace deal with Islamic militants in a border province would not give safe harbor to Osama bin Laden if he is found in the country.
Osama is too hot to publicly touch, obviously, but it’s not just for the sake of relations with the U.S. that this hot potato has gone airborne. Pakistan’s government has been dangerously unstable for years.
Since 9-11, Pakistan’s Musharref has been walking a tightrope, and it’s a mystery to me how he’s managed to stay in power. Given that Pakistan is a nuclear country, the import of the North Wajiristan treaty is hard to overstate; a radical Pakistan would be a far more pressing problem than Iran… and not just for us.
Unfortunately, and notwithstanding Sultan’s “we meant everybody except Osama”, it looks very much like al-Qaeda and the Taleban have negotiated themselves a new base of operations — possibly the biggest triumph to date for al-Qaeda, and an enormous blow to the United States.
There are, happily, some folks out there who are searching for a brighter interpretation of events. If you’re hoping to find the silver lining, they’re the place to look… and I sure hope they’re right, because al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden — and the Taleban — were the point of the whole danged Afghanistan excercise in the first place.
Some interesting perspectives from the press:
Asia Times Online
The Times of India
Pakistan Dawn (link to “latest stories” page)
Other interpretations from the blogosphere (some optimistic, some not):
Hot Air
Done With Mirrors
Captain’s Quarters
The Glittering Eye
Donklephant
Euphoric Reality
I don’t know how to interpret this – but it doesn’t look all that positive to me. 🙁
~EdT.
I agree. It is too early to tell what is really going on. The only thing that is almost certain is that some group of people will be upset with Mr. Mussaraf. If, as some people assume, he is setting it up so NATO and the US can go after Osama, then the tribal chiefs, who he will have to deal with long after the US is gone are going to be mighty unhappy. If he really sold our war on terror to the locals, this will not set well with those in power in Washington.
We will probably know in about a month. After all, this may be the set up for the long awaited “October surprise.”
You are correct to point out that Pakistan has real terrorists and real nukes. It would be nice to keep those two things away from each other for as long as possible. Even giving in to Osama would be a better outcome than confronting him and having the stray nuke or two end up in terrorists hands.
Robert: You touch upon something, in your last paragraph, that I fear few people want to broach as even as a consideration. I have not made up my mind (and I actually didn’t see my post as optimistic, for the record, but rather skeptical, cautionary and wait-and-see), but certainly what you bring up needs to be brought into the equation, at least for weighing, however reluctantly and painfully.
And, Polimom: Thanks for the link.
RIA
Even giving in to Osama would be a better outcome than confronting him and having the stray nuke or two end up in terrorists hands.
Robert, what do you mean by “giving in”? I agree with RIA (and you’re welcome :>) that, having touched upon it, we can at least talk about / expand it… but there are a number of ways to interpret your statement.
I’m assuming you don’t mean capitulate to the ideology…?