John Judis and Spencer Ackerman of the New Republic are lookin' good in their tin-foil lined Yankees caps.
The latest conspiracy - Evil BushCo is pressuring Musharaff and the Pakistanis to deliver Osama during Kerry's acceptance speech, timed to coincide with the balloon drop. Their Big Finish:
Pushing Musharraf to go after Al Qaeda in the tribal areas may be a good idea despite the risks. But, if that is the case, it was a good idea in 2002 and 2003. Why the switch now? Top Pakistanis think they know: This year, the president's reelection is at stake.
Is this a serious question? What has changed in Pakistan since 2002? Well, there was a time when the Pakistani ISI was in bed with the Taliban and Al Qaeda as part of Pakistani operations against India in Kashmir. However, Musharaff survived two assasination attempts by extremist groups in late 2003, and relations with India seem to have thawed a bit. Just maybe, Musharaff feels a bit more comfortable in taking on the terrorists his own intelligence agency has backed for years.
Beyond that, Pakistan did deliver Khalid Sheik Mohammed in March of 2003, so they have not been totally uncooperative before now.
MORE: When last we looked, Nek Mohammed was making a mockery of the Pakistanis. But he was killed in a missile attack on June 18, and now the government is pushing harder.
UPDATE: Wow. One of the biggest NO SALE signs I have ever seen goes up at Belgravitas. Yeah, what he said!
MUCH LATER: Waiting For The Balloon Drop (cont.)
Personally, I think bin Laden is dead in Tora Bora, but such a conspiritorial capture/handover could easily backfire on BushCo, as it would make the argument for a new team to handle the new world order somewhat plausible. You know, time to switch from a war fighting to a mop-up diplomacy operation: Taliban gone, OBL captured, and Iraq under new managment, Saddam captured.
Hell, they could even argue that while the "unilateralist" approach may have produced results in the ugliness of war fighting, it's clear that the "new" world order requires a consultative, rather than "go it alone," approach with our "allies."
I don't buy this argument simply because the WOT is not just about "bringing" bin Laden to justice. The Islamofacists have declared war on the "infidels," and this war won't be over until the conditions in the countries that serve as breeding grounds for terrorism--despotism--has been changed to political systems requiring consent of the governed.
What's shockingly inept about the TNR piece is that it presumes the Administration has the ability and resources to pull off such an event. The CIA has been tracking bin Laden since at least 1996, and yet have very little--regarding bin Laden--to show for it.
Has Tom Clancy even cooked up such a plot line?
Posted by: Forbes Tuttle | July 08, 2004 at 03:49 PM