The Red and Black

Issue date: 1/11/08 Section: Opinions

ALEX JOHNSON

In a post-Sept. 11 song, fellow Georgian and country music singer Alan Jackson admits he does not know the difference between Iraq and Iran.

But when it comes to Sept. 11 and the terrorist threat against the U.S., the real question is, do we know the difference between Iraq and Pakistan? Our national security depends on knowing the difference.

Pakistan is the country that is - or at least should be - the central front in our fight against terrorists because that is where al-Qaida is planning and training to attack us again. However, Iraq is the country in which 160,000 of our troops are policing a raging Sunni/Shia civil war that has little to do with the U.S.

The terrorist threat did not arise in Iraq. It arose from the al-Qaida jihadist movement which once was harbored in Afghanistan but, since U.S. involvement, has moved across its border with Pakistan. The current administration effectively has blurred the whole Middle East region by diverting U.S. attention away from the true threat.

Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader who planned the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 that changed the world, is alive and well. Senior U.S. intelligence officials believe he is nestled in a safe haven for radical Islamic extremism, which thrives in the lawless tribal mountains of the Northwest Frontier Province along the Pakistan and Afghanistan border.

The terrorist organizations safeguarded here are responsible for attacks on America, the London bombings of 2005 and, some believe, the recent assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto - who the U.S. supported for a coalition government with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. All such terrorist attacks germinated from al-Qaida.

Pakistan purportedly has been on the U.S.' side in the war on terror, and since 2001, we have, according to Time, given $10 billion to Pakistan to be used to fight the Taliban. However, it is disheartening to find out that most of this money has been used not to fight terror but to antagonize its eastern border rival, India - who happens to be an American ally. We apparently have not been spending our money for the war on terror wisely.

According to the most recent Economist cover story on Pakistan, aptly entitled, "The world's most dangerous place," these terrorist groups who dream of a global jihad "have gained unprecedented power during America's six-year war on terror." With our attention turned toward Iraq, our real enemies, the ones who actually have attacked us, are allowed to grow.

The Economist briefing on Pakistan reports that this lawless mountain-border region has become the central hub for Pakistani and foreign jihadist terrorists, and warlords "now control a vast and spreading swathe of territory." A large sum of money and Pakistani soldiers are ineffective substitutes in the fight against these jihadists.

Under President Musharraf, Pakistan, the world's least stable nuclear state, has gone through many transgressions from the democratic process, including martial law implementation and the suspension of habeas corpus. There also is an overwhelming suspicion that Musharraf's government did not provide adequate protection for Bhutto leading up to the election that was supposed to be held on Tuesday. The riots following her assassination left 174 banks, 22 trains and 13 electoral offices burned or destroyed.

Pakistan is in an atmosphere of utter chaos where the democratic process is stalled and political opposition is threatened, which, in addition to the fact that its government harbors both nuclear weapons and terrorists, create a terrifying equation.

The International Panel on Fissile Materials reported that Pakistan holds enough material to create approximately 60 nuclear bombs. Currently, the arsenal of fissionable material is heavily guarded by a strong, though corrupt, military. How long these weapons will be secure is anybody's guess.

The absolute worst long-term outcome in Pakistan would be for its cozy relationship with jihadists to turn into a situation in which the Taliban and al-Qaida-type terrorists gain control of its unstable government or get their hands on fissionable materials and nuclear technology. The Bush administration's failure to focus on the real threat in its war on terror has allowed our enemy to foster its next generation in an environment that is more dangerous now than ever. This ominous legacy is the greatest burden to be undertaken by the next administration.

- Alex Johnson is a junior from Royston majoring in history and international affairs and is a member of the Roosevelt Institution.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools