The tension is now reaching a critical stage in Pakistan – and the United States is partly to blame for compounding President Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s difficulty in holding together a country that is rapidly converting to – and is under direct assault by Radical Islam. Pakistan could be a vital resource for the United States – but our gun-barrel diplomacy, and remarks made by naïve and ignorant politicians are adding to the possibility of civil war in Pakistan, and remember, they already have a well-balanced arsenal of nuclear weapons. This is a nightmare we don’t need, and it’s time for the State Department and President Bush himself to understand that some of their statements are so inflammatory and ridiculous that they are stoking the flames of unrest throughout the Middle-east through nothing more than their ignorance and big mouths! Unfortunately, it isn’t just the GOP that’s complicating the situation, but the Democrats have joined-in to show their ignorance as well.

It looks like the media may try to play this one down, depending on how serious is gets. RAW Story ran the headline “State of emergency possible in Pakistan “ while CNN’s headline was “Embattled Pakistan leader skips Karzai meeting , leaving the reader thinking that maybe Musharraf might have had the flue, a family matter, or his government and country were close to collapse!

Pakistan May Declare State of Emergency

By MATTHEW PENNINGTON
Associated Press Writer

(Excerpts)
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Legal experts and security officials met with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf Thursday, as the government weighed whether to invoke a state of emergency for what it said were mounting “external and internal” threats, officials said.

Tariq Azim, minister of state for information, said talk from the United States about the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan “has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public.” He mentioned Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama by name as an example of someone who made such comments, saying his recent remarks were one reason the government was debating a state of emergency.

But it appeared the motivation for an emergency declaration was domestic political woes of Musharraf, a key ally in the U.S. war on terrorism.

The Bush administration has also not ruled out unilateral military action inside Pakistan, but like Obama, has stressed the need to work with Musharraf.

On Wednesday, Obama was asked again about his views on Pakistan.

“We can’t send millions and millions of dollars to Pakistan for military aid and be a constant ally to them and yet not see more aggressive action in dealing with al-Qaida,” he told reporters in Oakland, Calif.

However, he did not repeat the most incendiary line from his foreign policy speech last week when he promised: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” (Emphasis added) MUCH MORE

First, look at it from a purely military and strategic stand-point; forget the politics, forget what an insult it is to blatantly state we’re going to take unilateral action against their country without their President’s approval – and Pakistan is supposed to be an ally; what better way to undermine President Musharraf and add even more fuel to a fire that has been simmering for years. To those that have been studying Middle-East culture, their indignation and solidity against the United States, now worse than ever, was without question exacerbated by Bush and Obama, but from Bush it was to be expected, yet Obama was supposed to represent what voter’s are seeking to replace in the 2008 elections – American Imperialism, and then a Democratic candidate makes an asinine statement like that…

Let’s say that we had verifiable intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan, along with most of the upper-echelon Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership – and we expected that at some future date we might have to make a unilateral strike inside Pakistani territory to finish the job, why wouldn’t we just keep our mouths shut? We have had “eyes on” surveillance in the northwestern border areas of Pakistan through several different means for a long while; why would we publicly announce that we might consider unilateral action and give the enemy a warning to go further underground and make it even harder to accomplish the job? Was the Bush administration so naïve they thought that somehow all of this harsh rhetoric was going to force Musharraf’s hand to tighten-up border control in the northwestern border areas when he’s doing a balancing act right now just to stay in power? If that’s the case – we’re all in for a pretty bumpy ride, and it’s going to get substantially worse.

To ice the cake of our most recent international blunder, Republican congressman Thomas G Tancredo suggested that if the United States is attacked, “we should take out their holy sites.” LINK Yeah, that was r-e-a-l intelligent there Mr. Tancredo; Bomb Mecca, and instantly convince over 1.2 Billion Muslims, peaceful and radical, that surely we must be their version of the Anti-Christ – and we’ll have a religious war with approximately 22 percent of the world’s population as soon as the first bomb explodes. Wake-up people, and think before you speak! We are never going to solve the complexities of Iraq and Iran if our armchair soldiers, Executive and otherwise don’t learn what diplomacy means, and above all, think before they open their mouths! Too many utter words that help to destabilize a part of the world that needs sanity – not more of the same that got us into this mess in the beginning.

By their ignorance and actions, you’d almost think they are trying to escalate the tension…

William Cormier

Buzz this!

Like it? Tweet it!

Bookmark It