A portion of the transcript:
Hamid Karzai: The problem of terrorism, as it is affecting Afghanistan, is not entirely an Afghan problem. As a matter of fact, a greater part of this problem is a regional problem, and a greater part of this problem is unfortunately coming to us from Pakistan. So the Americans, the international coalition – when they say they are continuing to work in Afghanistan, and yet the security is not there, they are right, because they have not gone to the right place to fight terrorism.
Interviewer: Which is?
Hamid Karzai: Which is the sanctuaries that the terrorists have in Pakistan.
Interviewer: But Pakistan, actually, recently... I have noticed that there is a very strong declaration from the Afghan government against Pakistan. You have accused the Pakistani government of being behind your attempted assassination, the last one, and the most dangerous thing is that you have threatened that you would go behind the borders just to find Al-Qaeda, and Taliban as well, which means you will go to Pakistan. Right now, Mr. President, if you don't have the power to secure the situation in Afghanistan, do you think you have the power to go behind the border?
Hamid Karzai: When I said that Afghanistan would go in self defense beyond the Durand Line, [it] was in response to a statement that came from terrorist networks from Pakistan, from someone called Baitullah Mahsoud – you must have heard of him, and from someone called [Maulana] Fazlullah. They declared that they would cross the border and come into Afghanistan, to kill Afghans and the international troops. Now, for me, the president of a sovereign country – when there is a threat issued to me beyond my borders by someone, what is my responsibility?
Interviewer: That's right, but the question is: Do you have the power? Can you do it?
Hamid Karzai: The power is the power of the government, of the institutions of the government, and of the people. Afghanistan is known in history – and Afghanistan has proven that in history – that when the Afghan people decide to defend themselves, they always win – as we have always won.
Source: MEMRI TV clip of excerpts from an interview with President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, which aired on Dubai TV on July 14, 2008.
Watch the interview.
Commentary
The War on Terror (World War IV) is not limited to fighting against governments (such as Omar Mohammed's Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or Syria, Iran, North Korea, Sudan...etc), but also against organizations that are not governments. In this war, the umbrella organization called al-Qaeda is an enemy, as are Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, Abu Sayyaf, Jamaat ul Fuqra, and dozens of other terror groups worldwide.
Fighting this war to a successful conclusion will involvemany things, but one of the most important ingredient is not allowing terrorists to have sanctuary anywhere in the world. They must always be pursued, and never allowed to rest or re-build their strength.
Previously, the Democrats have agitated for more troops to go to Afghanistan. Wanna bet they'll change their minds once they realize there might be some possibility of going into Pakistan to fight the terrorists, even as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama, once suggested?
Posts
2 comments :
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?
I am of the opinion that the whole of our middle eastern policy revolve around the survival of Israel, and make it clear in no uncertain terms that the destruction of Israel by any force will require that we destroy the ones responsible.
I don't give a flip what anyone thinks about it. I also think that the Friends of Israel here in the USA should have their own Sampson Option to destroy this nation if we ever turn our back on Israel.
And I think that the Free Chinese in Taiwan should be firmly under our nuclear umbrella as well. Red China should realize that they would forfeit their right to exist as a people if they try to take Taiwan.
We should fight to win, and hang anyone here who doesn't want to win.
Post a Comment