Pakistan: Still The World's Most Dangerous Country
If ever there were justice in an election, surely the repudiation of President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan is it. The general who overthrew the civilian government in 1999 is watching his hand-picked political party get soundly defeated in parliamentary voting, even after he ceremonially removed his uniform and turned over command of the armed forces, and even after the political assassination of his main rival Benazir Bhutto.
Musharraf will likely hang on as president, despite being shown to be ineffective at securing Pakistan's national security, the very "reason" he seized power in the first place. Almost a decade of Musharraf rule has resulted in the growth of domestic and international terrorist organizations on Pakistani soil, despite the American war in Afghanistan and despite Pakistan's own counter-terrorism effort, an effort that Washington continues to publicly applaud.
Saying that Pakistan has failed miserably in fighting terrorism may seem empty on the heels of news that the United States scored yet another big hit in the country killing Abu Laith al-Libi, an important al Qaeda lieutenant, and at the moment when Pakistan seems to be on the road to a turnaround, what with news of more unilateral American strikes and with a greater American presence on the ground there.
Yet in terms of international terrorism, Pakistan remains the most dangerous place in the world. The lethal methods being perfected do little to address why radical Islam flourishes in the nation, or why Pakistan is one of the world's largest current terror exporters. And though a new government will be brought to power based upon Musharraf's counter-terrorism failures, there is little reason to believe that anyone in Pakistan or Washington has a better counter-terror strategy.
Pakistan's vote against Musharraf's political party, observers of the political scene there say, is partly a protest against the rise of terrorism in the country and the Pakistani strong man's failure to deal with the border areas, where local and domestic Islamic militancy, tribal rule, Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, and al Qaeda all flourish.
American officials on the one hand praise Musharraf and his efforts to fight terrorism and lawlessness in the border regions. On the other, the American political pressure exerted on the Pakistani president over the past year to hold elections and allow Bhutto to return, and the shift in American counter-terrorism policy to the Pakistan problem, reflects a sense of urgency about an area previously thought at least to be "under control."
I think the Bush administration has already faced an internal reckoning in terms of its reliance and support for Musharraf, and the repeated visits of American military commanders and intelligence officials to the country in the past six months signals that the United States is no longer going to defer to its old friend.
But there is no new strategy. More unilateral strikes with Predator drones -- head-hunting missions -- may kill terrorists, even important "high value targets," one at a time. But haven't we learned by now that al Qaeda and other terrorists are less centralized and more adaptive that we have previously credited? And the notion of American "boots on the ground" in Pakistan is not only absurd in terms of resources, but it would be a disaster in a proud highly nationalistic country.
In fact, one could argue that unilateral American head-hunting and U.S. special operations on the ground undermine whatever it is that Pakistan itself could do to bring law and order to the border regions and fight the terror problem. Yet we are saddled with the Bush doctrine of preemption and unilateral action, even as we rhetorically support the notion that it is for local governments ultimately to fight terrorism.
The "war" against terrorism, if it is a war at all, is indeed a long one for which few conventional battles will be won. The quicker we can come to grips with the emptiness of the Bush doctrine, the quicker we may be able to formulate a less military-dominated approach. Pakistan will be the test case.
By William M. Arkin |
February 19, 2008; 9:05 AM ET
Pakistan
Previous: Insurbordination and the F-22 Fighter: It's Not So Simple |
Next: Pause in Iraq? Try Permanent Bases in the Region
Posted by: UK politics student | May 7, 2008 8:40 PM
How Americans cry about mexican entering there country illegally and stealing there jobs with cheap labour ,that's what the war in Afghanistan has brought in Pakistan, every day theses so called al qida terrorist come into Pakistan and kill the innocent civilians buying loaf of bread, and these Afghan smugglers exporting large quantity of essential goods from Pakistan Creating shortage in Pakistan, no body cares about what the war has brought to Pakistan because you people are so obsessed with 10 billion dollar aid the USA given to Pakistan up to date , we have over 10 million afghans living in Pakistan illegally if they go back i think Pakistan would in better condition than today
Posted by: R Rafiq | May 3, 2008 1:26 PM
Ncie article very well written ,did not lack in any deatils!
gud work
By arul vigg.
Posted by: Arul Vigg | March 5, 2008 2:23 PM
wht ever is hapening in PAKISTAN is gest BECAUSE of many BAD people are now controling the country and have sell there FAOTH to Americans and ISRAEL .they are felling there pockets and leting the Public Die and Killing each other "
Crimes have EXCEDED because of Such kind of B*** F*** i dare them to FACE GOOD people in the Country to whome they are killing " SOON they WELL be F*** up by there people only and WE hope the PAKISTAN well Become a country of PEACE and an e.g for others " FAISAL from UK
Posted by: FAISAL NADEEM | February 29, 2008 12:51 PM
My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Janet Jackson's breast, to free its milk and to defend Americans of faith from grave danger.
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of erotic importance to undermine Janet Jackson's breasts ability to remain perky. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign.
More than 35 televangelical ministries are giving crucial support, from the use of communications and airwaves, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of special forces. Every church in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.
The enemies you confront will come to know your stress positions and brave anal thoroughness. The oil you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the chosen messenger of God's gift to freedom to every man, woman and child in this world: White House Spiritual Leader Pastor Ted Haggard.
In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. That's why I have given authorization to waterboard them to obtain confessions for their execution - er - fair trial. As Governor of Texas I have demonstrated with my sidekick Fredo my civilized executions. Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada..
For many years, we provided Saddam Hussein with chemicals and logistical support to ensure that someone like Maliki would never seize control of Iraq. Now we will ensure that Saddam Hussein is never allowed to tell the world what he knows about it. That is what I call the meaning of American justice, heheh. Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada..
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from seeing Lady Justice exposed. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. The liberals who control Hollywood must be wiretapped.
We come to Iraq with respect for its museums, ministries, for their great civilization and archaeological treasures. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove oil and restore control of that oil to our own people. I assure, we don't care about your fn pottery.
Our nation enters this oilfield reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our cronies and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder- wait, that's me!
As our Messenger, Pastor Ted once said, now that prayer breakfast has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures and we will accept no outcome but going in all the way. Our unarmored Humvees get 2 miles to the gallon. That's enough to get to Baghdad, and then we can fillem up. Our troops do not have the Body Armor needed to walk in Los Angeles at night because they have been issued vases for the flowers. Of course, when they return home they will need Body Armor - that's a Hokie Hope Day every few hours!
Posted by: Flower Power | February 25, 2008 5:30 PM
U.S.A has very narrow minded approach towards present day Pakistan. Ground realities are totally different since Soviets withdrawal from Afghanistan. Americans left the arena without any future strategic assessment or any thought about the dangers to it's own security. They forgot that they were leaving behind a bunch of well trained and most dangerous youth who would not be welcome back to their own countries at any cost, specially Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Now that Americans are themselves caught in this embroglio, it would be insane to expect that this threat is going to go away that easily. I wish and pray that the Russians don't get involved into it. Otherwise the myth of a "Super Power" is going to be shattered pretty soon. A bit of mental exercise may do wonders here.
Posted by: B K Minhas | February 24, 2008 9:43 AM
I see Arkin glossing over the fact that employees of the United States declared war on Pakistan last week, absent Congressional authority and absent public presidential authority, too. This declaration of war was clear and simple, and boastfully laid out on page 1 of The Washington Post: the CIA and DOD will conspire together to kill people in Pakistan whenever they feel like it.
This, Arkin describes as "unilateral American head-hunting".
It's certainly one more reason to suggest Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world, and suggestive also that nobody's minding the store in Washington. The guys out back are doing anything they feel like.
Posted by: kunino | February 24, 2008 2:18 AM
I wonder why we are not seeing the positives that have come out of these elections.
1. These have been the fairest, freest and by far the most peaceful elections in Pakistan's History - Pakistani people are all for democracy.
2. Pakistanis have rejected the religious right - from over 50 seats to less than 5 - Pakistani are moderate, peace loving people.
3. The two main political parties that were always at logger heads are talking about forming a Goverenment of National Unity - Amazing. A sense of reconciliation.
All other things being said and done are politics.
I beleive that we need Musharraf to stay on, we need him more than ever. His presence as an elder statesman is imperative.
Please concentrate on the positives that are happening in Pakistan - you people very conviniently portray even the positives in such a negative light.
GIVE PAKISTAN A BREAK
Posted by: AbuBakr O | February 22, 2008 2:40 PM
//plainracist: "Paki"
"Paki" is a racist expression with roots in England.
Your true 'color' is showing.\\
I am not, or ever have been - a racist. I used the term 'Paki' as an abbreviation. I take no personal offense if am referred to as a 'yank' - too.
Don't even try to assign a racial slur to me - buddy...
Posted by: Plainfacto | February 20, 2008 2:29 PM
I am tired of people attacking Bush for the failures of Musharaff; it is neither fair nor correct.
plainfacto,
All due respect to you for you are a true American patriot like the rest of us, however, where we differ you is -
the Bush record stands or
falls based upon
its own merit.
Many of us believe, the more analytical patriots that based on objective
analysis his foreign policy of adventurism, has been a
dismal failure.
That whole region is a powder keg just
waiting to explode. Mr. Bush has
only exacerbated the problem and
fomented unrest in that entire
region and the Middle-East.
America needs a problem-solver President, not one who creates more problems. And
like most corporate executives in
America who have failed us,
Mr. Bush will soon receive
his Golden Parachute - he
will be compensated for
his failures!
Posted by: The Rev | February 20, 2008 1:36 PM
plainracist: "Paki"
"Paki" is a racist expression with roots in England.
Your true 'color' is showing.
Posted by: | February 20, 2008 1:03 PM
//The "war" against terrorism, if it is a war at all, is indeed a long one for which few conventional battles will be won. The quicker we can come to grips with the emptiness of the Bush doctrine, the quicker we may be able to formulate a less military-dominated approach. Pakistan will be the test case.\\
Or perhaps the emptiness and failures of the Clinton policy or the Carter policy that you didn't want to mention? Their 'hands off' approach only emboldened terrorism. As I recall, that didn't work at all. Whereas the Reagan policy and the Bush Sr policy with 'hands on' worked well enough to count. But who is keeping score besides me? I think what we are seeing is that our foes have been adapting to our counter terrorism tactics. Terrorism is entering a new phase...
What other approach would you suggest - rather than using the military when fighting armed terrorists? Gift certificates from McDonald's? Maybe we can pay them off with opium? Get serious Arkin, what other options are on the table?
If the US is not going to deal with Musharaff any more; is the incoming Paki politicos going to be swayed with USAID? Bipartisan support from the US is predicated upon a Pakistan gov't that is taking our cues. I have made the point on previous pages here, I have said that it would be expedient for Pakistan to clean house and remove systemic failures before we give them another cent. Our biggest concerns are that Pakistan has a stable democracy and can protect their nukes from terrorist takeover. What the Pakis do with their gov't is up to them. I am certain the Pakis would coldly resent your saying that they are nothing more than a 'test bed' for US foreign policy!
Why don't we pressure them to show us their plans to deal with their terrorist breeding grounds? I think that unless they have a clear and decisive plan; then they really have no plan at all. You know: fool me once...
Musharaff has done this until now, and I found it unacceptable in our future dealings with this man. I am tired of people attacking Bush for the failures of Musharaff; it is neither fair nor correct. We have been pacified in our thinking - just because Musharaff is a US-handshaking dictator and that should be enough to satisfy our/their dilemma. It is more or less a band aid for Pakistans own omissions, faults, and failures - when we re-issue more hand-outs that amount to nothing because nothing is done. Pakistan is certainly our problem too, because we are direct recipients of their terrorism. We must be firm and unwaivering in our stance. If our demands are not met with compliance; then are only course isto use more extreme forms of diplomacy. It is in their best interests to see their gov't work; a loose cannon nuke state cannot remain without some choices being made to fill their void.
Whoever gets to be the 'big kahuna' in Pakistan had better show some remorse. The failure of Musharaff to deal with cooking up more terrorist universities while smiling and taking our bucks is no longer our plan. They had better become a gov't that makes terrorism a thing of their past - rather than to use it to recieve sympathy money and do nothing at all.
Posted by: Plainfacto | February 20, 2008 3:52 AM
Our country gave Musharraf military aid to fight the terrorists. He put it on the borders with India. The fundamentalists gaining power in Pakistan led to the sale of the aircraft to India as a hedge against extremist takeover. Strict Sharia always lowers the standard of living and intelligence of people. Very simple, you don't educate women, their children are less intelligent, you don't let them in the workforce your economy will perform worse.
Posted by: Jimbo | February 19, 2008 7:07 PM
Pakistan is 40 states each with its own power structure. Most of non-urban Pakistan does not want secular schooling. The proliferation of Wahabi style fundamentalist madrassahs is increasing the power of the Taliban every day. The four assemblies and national assembly form their government with PML(N) with the most seats in the national assembly and PPPP with the most seats in the regionals. Neither can form a government on its own and chances are slim for a coalition of the two with different ideologies. PPPP may try to form a government with PML(Q), MQM, and the independents. We will know in short order.
Posted by: Jimbo | February 19, 2008 6:45 PM
Arkin writes "The quicker we can come to grips with the emptiness of the Bush doctrine..."
It's a really hopeful sign that middle-of-the-roaders like Arkin are now willing to admit what's been obvious since 2000, or at the latest 2004:
Bush and his controllers are opinionated amateurs whose contempt for informed opinion has led to catastrophic mistakes. They were brilliant at polarizing politics, and dismissing critics as 'partisan' - but empty on substance.
The question is, who and how will we forge a meaningful policy?
Pakistan and Israel/neighbors, two nuclear-armed hotspots where a thinning line of technocrats struggle to hold back their extremist hawks, are where the future battle for world security will play out.
The silence regarding this in the Presidential elections is remarkable.
Posted by: | February 19, 2008 5:17 PM
Mr.Arkin I disagree with your subheadline that Tuesday's elections in Pakistan changes nothing ! You may not be surprised but most Pakistanis will eventually see some relief. Lessening of one man's autocratic rule, legislative and consultative bodies, a prime minister whom they have elected sharing power and influencing decisions affecting day to day life of ordinary citizens. Who knows may help reduce daily attack by Jihadists thru their political and community influence . After all it is worth noticing that elections have returned more secular representatives in two legislatures of the border provines of Pakistan with Afghanisatan, than ever before .
I consider this a very positive out come of Tuesday' elections.
Posted by: DANIAL FAROOQ | February 19, 2008 5:08 PM
Arkin Arkin ye of little faith. A better headline would be "Pakistan: A Less Dangerous Country Today".
The people there not only rejects Bush's favorite dictator but also the Islamic extremists. If that is not a good sign then what is? As a matter of fact it is about as good as it gets anywhere on earth nowadays - rejection of both violent Islamic terrorism and violent preemptive strike Bushism.
Home grown democracy is the best counter-terror strategy. What the US needs to do now is to suspend all unilateral military actions in that country, press for the quick installment of a civilian government, restoration of the arrested Judges to the Supreme Court, and condition all future aids on progress on both terrorism and corruption. Then stay the hell out of their internal politics.
As for the Pakistanis, this is the best chance they have. It's up to them to seize it. Otherwise in another thirty to fifty years they will have fallen so far behind India they won't matter much on the world stage.
Posted by: Dao | February 19, 2008 2:43 PM
For uncensored news please bookmark:
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.counterpunch.org
www.globalresearch.ca
otherside123.blogspot.com
An Interview with Imran Khan on Today's Parliamentary Elections, the Future of Musharaff and the Hope for a Democratic Pakistan
Free Pakistan
By WAJAHAT ALI
It's Monday, February 18, 2008, and the entire world is anxiously focusing on Pakistan. After nearly a month's delay due to Benazir Bhutto's assassination, Pakistan's contentious and, some say, "historic" parliamentary elections were held amidst a sea of violence, unrest, and political instability.
"These elections are completely rigged, yaar. The results were already in last week. I really pray for Pakistan. There's going to be a lot of trouble tomorrow," an insider, who wishes to remain anonymous, tells me in a dejected, cynical, yet passionate voice straining for hope. Throughout the night and early morning, we've been keeping each other company through emails and quick cell calls, as I play phone tag with Imran Khan's contacts in Pakstan; first, his office underling, then his personal driver, then, finally, with his publicist who tells me to call back every 10 minutes and to "just hope" I get "lucky" to nab an extremely busy Mr Khan, who, as luck would have it, just stepped out twenty minutes ago for a CNN International interview.
One of the most popular and influential Pakistani personalities of the past twenty years, Khan first made his name as Pakistan's winning Cricket captain and sophisticated socialite. Then, he emerged as a worldly humanitarian and founder of Pakistan's first Cancer hospital. However, his newest role as the head of Pakistan's Tehreek-e -- Insaaf [Pakistan's Movement for Justice Political Party] has cast him as one of Musharaff's most vocal and animated critics, who passionately, and some say naively, advocates for Pakistan's political reform and progression towards an enlightened democracy. After five hours of phone tag, I was able to nab an exclusive interview with Imran Khan. This conversation took place only a few hours ago.
"Hello? Hello?"
"Imran Khan? Assalam Alikum, I'm Wajahat Ali, a journalist from the United States. I know you're off to a reception, and they told me I've got limited time, so I promise I'll make it quick. Will you take some questions?
[In Urdu, the language of Pakistan] "Ok, Wajahat. Whom are you writing for?"
[In Urdu] "We can do this in Urdu if you want. I'm a writer from three respected online magazines. A contributor to Counterpunch, a very respected and well read political magazine with a savvy international audience. Also, I'm an Associate Editor with Altmuslim and contributor to Islamica, the most respected Muslim American magazines read by the movers and shakers in politics and --
[Back to English] "Ok, let's start. Let's start."
"Excuse me? I didn't hear-"
"Let's start."
"Ok, you ready?"
"Yeah, let's go."
ALI: Ok, first question. The polls in Pakistan for the General Election are now officially closed. Here's the question on everyone's minds around the world: First: Will these elections be free and fair? Second: Will the results represent the pulse and wishes of the people?
KHAN: Number one, they are certainly not free and fair. Because the greatest pre-poll rigging ever in our history was done, where the whole State administration was pushing the pro-government, pro-Musharaff candidates. Every party has every day listed the ways the elections have been rigged for the past month. Secondly, it is the lowest ever voter turn out. In fact, I would say that 75% of the people have rejected the electoral process. They did not feel that if your Constitution is suspended, if 60% of your judges have been unconstitutionally sacked, your Chief Justice is under house arrest, then you cannot have free and fair election when the pre-conditions are not there. So, basically, people have rejected the election. If the people have come out to vote, then it is against pro-Musharaff candidates.
ALI: So, you're completely convinced that it's rigged against the Pro-Musharaff candidates?
KHAN: You can just do any random sampling. You can see that people who are coming in -- the PML-Q [Musharaff's party] if it wins, no one will accept the results. No one is going to accept the results.
ALI: Ok, so no one is going to accept the results. Here is the natural follow up question. Should we expect much violence and bloodshed following the announcement of the results?
KHAN: I think, as I said, there was a poll conducted and 58% of the people said that they would not accept the result if the PML-Q comes to power. 58%! And they would go out and demonstrate. This is from a poll done recently.
For the rest please go to:
Posted by: che | February 19, 2008 1:48 PM
The USA is the most dangerous country
...in the world, hands down. Pakistan isn't even a close second. Other
nations of the world are not
afraid of what Pakistan will do..., most nations and people of the world are more mindful of what the U.S.A. has done in the past and what it is doing now, invasions, occupations, saber-rattling et al!
Just imagine if you lived in some other
nation of the world, imagine what your
opinion of the United States would be
then?
The U.S.A. will either threaten a nation,
manipulate a nation, isolate a nation, strangulate a nation economically or politically or attack a nation. And the
threat of nuclear annihilation always hangs in the balance. Pakistan may
have the bomb, however, the U.S.A has
USED THE BOMB, and makes no bones
about using it again, while making sure that it keeps other nations disarmed!
So now then, who is the most dangerous
nation in the world? What is truly amazing is that other nations of the
world have not banded together in order to abut American-style terrorism!
Thank God that the American people have finally repudiated the American President George Bush - everyone is waiting for he and his sidekicks to head into the sunset!
America can end worldwide terrorism in one stroke, all we have to do is get our own nation to discontinue its own worldwide terrorist practices. That would effectively eliminate just about 90% of worldwide terrorism I would estimate!
As long as the U.S.A. keeps the world's focus on other nations like the DPRK, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Bolivia,
Nicaragua..., then the world will continue to overlook what the United States is doing!
And what we are doing in the world is not right either folks!
And this is the truth, not hate talking!
Posted by: The Rev | February 19, 2008 12:30 PM
Musharraf put too much faith in his friendship with Bush, and as we all know and hinted to by Kessenger, American friendship is more dangerous than American animosity. Musharraf era has been a complete disaster for Pakistan since he came to power Pakistan has been going down fast. During his reign his policies have been all short term and ceremonial nothing of substance was added to the nation at all. While Pakistan is currently short of electricity and electricity blackouts the length of half a day is the norm it is interesting to know that not even a single megawatt was added to generation capacity of Pakistan over his 9 year long dictatorship. He was a general in the army when Pakistan was supporting Taleban during late 90s. and continued to do so until the night of 911. After he joined forces with Bush he consolidated more power and became more arrogant dictator supperssing the people in the name of the war on terror and while USA was reaping the benefit of War on terror the pakistani nation being the prime victim both before and after 911 were being further suppressed and enemy of Pakistani nation the India was being offered nuclear power stations and F35 fighter planes by USA as if India was paying the price in this costly war . So Pakistani nation felt awkward with musharraf and USA and now most of Pakistani nation are waiting for musharraf to go and for a new "productive" relationship with USA (in which both have to benefit) to be initiated or else Pakistan to pull out of war on terror for good.
Posted by: Ali | February 19, 2008 10:52 AM
If Musharraf were a wise man and desired to see Pakistan achieve it's zenith in history--he would be the stick for Democracy and destroy the extremist's for all times. Then, Pakistan would grow economically and Democratically.
Posted by: ghostcommander | February 19, 2008 9:52 AM
Really?
I think Kosovo has potential...
PRISTINA, Kosovo - Kosovo's parliament declared the disputed territory a nation on Sunday, mounting a historic bid to become an "independent and democratic state" backed by the U.S. and European allies but bitterly contested by Serbia and Russia.
Fireworks lit up the night sky over Kosovo's capital Pristina, where thousands of giddy ethnic Albanians braved subfreezing temperatures to ride on the roofs of their cars, singing patriotic songs and chanting: "KLA! KLA!" the acronym for the now-disbanded rebel Kosovo Liberation Army. [source]
http://www.forbes.com/topstories/home/feeds/ap/2008/02/17/ap4664597.html?partner=moreover
The Kosovo Liberation Army was a mercenary army, and it's recruiter was... Osama bin Laden
"The fact that Al Qaeda continues to support KLA terrorist operations in Macedonia, with the full support of NATO and the US government, has been carefully overlooked. With the complicity of NATO and the US State Department. Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia were first recruited to fight in the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998-99, largely supporting NATO's war effort.
Bin Laden had visited Albania himself. His was one of several fundamentalist groups that had sent units to fight in Kosovo. He is believed to have established an operation in Albania in 1994. Albanian sources say Sali Berisha, who was then president, had links with some groups that later proved to be extreme fundamentalists. (Sunday Times, London, 29 November 1998.)
Among the foreign mercenaries now fighting in Macedonia (October
2001), in the ranks of self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), are Mujahideen from the Middle East and the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Also within the KLA's proxy force in Macedonia are senior US military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon. (Scotland on Sunday, Glasgow, 15 June 2001)"
http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2003/10.html
To put it in terms that most Americans can easily understand, if not easily comprehend:
"During his stint as NATO Supreme Commander (1997-2000), Wesley Clark was in permanent liaison with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Under Wesley Clark's command, NATO directly sponsored a terrorist paramilitary army, with links to Al Qaeda and the trans-Balkan narcotics trade."
Posted by: Da' Buffalo | February 19, 2008 9:43 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
More American propaganda to scare the world and help fuel their 'war of terror'. America has not genuinely helped one country, it has only 'helped them'...whether it be Iraq or Iran (Iraq by the way before America ripped it apart, had the highest number of PhD's in the world. Does this sound like a country that needed to be attacked?)
The US loves depicting Pakistan is this terrible light. This journalist gets his story sold because of how brazenly he talks about Pakistan as the 'most dangerous place'. I'm curious as to whether he has actually personally seen all of Pakistan. Sure there's dangerous places, but there's some very safe one's too. places where Americans live freely, shop around and have a normal life...until the US decides to give them reason to be scared. I know plenty of White foreigners who live in Karachi and Lahore and they haven't experienced a moment of trouble, only a warm welcome. America breeds and finds its own enemies with its policies. The Bush administration is slowly, but surely, killing the international or global image of America. People across the globe generally have a dislike towards America. I really wish America would look at itself in a mirror and realize how much it is doing to make the world dislike it so much.