Mr. Cheney’s trip was shrouded in secrecy, and he was on the ground for only a few hours, sharing a private lunch with the Pakistani leader at his palace. Notably, Mr. Cheney traveled with the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Steve Kappes, an indication that the conversation with the Pakistani president likely included discussion of American intelligence agency contentions that Al Qaeda camps have been reconstituted along the border of Afghanistan.
The decision to send Mr. Cheney secretly to Pakistan came after the White House concluded that General Musharraf is failing to live up to commitments he made to Mr. Bush during a visit here in September. General Musharraf insisted then, both in private and public, that a peace deal he struck with tribal leaders in one of the country’s most lawless border areas would not diminish the hunt for the leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
… General Musharraf, a savvy survivor in the brutal world of Pakistani politics, knows that the administration is hesitant to push him too far. If his government collapses, it is not clear who would succeed him or who would gain control over Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear weapons.
But the spread of Al Qaeda in the tribal areas threatens to undermine a central element of Mr. Bush’s argument that he is succeeding in the administration’s effort to curb terrorism. The bomb plot disrupted in Britain last summer, involving plans to hijack airplanes, has been linked by British and American intelligence agencies to camps in the Pakistan-Afghan border areas.
… Congressional Democrats have threatened to review military assistance and other aid to Pakistan unless they see evidence of aggressive attacks on Al Qaeda. The House last month passed a measure linking future military aid to White House certification that Pakistan “is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control.”
Pakistan is now the fifth-largest recipient of American aid. Mr. Bush has proposed $785 million in aid to Pakistan in his new budget, including $300 million in military aid to help Pakistan combat Islamic radicalism in the country.
The rumblings from Congress give Mr. Bush and his top advisers a way of conveying the seriousness of the problem, officials said, without appearing to issue a direct threat to the proud Pakistani leader themselves.
… During his visit to Washington last fall, General Musharraf said the agreement he signed with tribal leaders, giving them greater sovereignty in the region, had “three bottom lines.” He said one was “no Al Qaeda activities in our tribal agencies or across the border in Afghanistan.” The second was “no Taliban activity” in the same areas. And the third was “no Talibanization,” which he described as “obscurantist thoughts or way of life.”
… American officials say one reason General Musharraf agreed to pull government troops back to their barracks in North Waziristan and allow tribal leaders greater control over security was to give him time to rebuild his intelligence network in the border region gradually.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
“Democrats, who took control of Congress last month, have urged the White House to put greater pressure on Pakistan because of statements from American commanders that units based in Pakistan that are linked to the Taliban, Afghanistan’s ousted rulers, are increasing their attacks into Afghanistan.”
Does anyone know the record times of the backstroke swimming event, in the Olympics? I have a feeling that the “Democrats”, will better that record and soon.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Big scary if Musharraf falls. Not only would we have an Islamic fundamentalist regime with nuclear weapons, but our supplies to Afghanistan would have to come mainly by air. Frankly, I think that would be a huge burden-just think of trying to fly in fuel enough for patrols.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Pak It Up
Bush To Musharraf: Try Harder Ed Morrissey Pervez Musharraf insisted that the peace deal he signed with tribal chiefs would not interfere with the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. No one really bought it, but the Bush administration put
February 26th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Of all the leaders in this fight, Musharraf is in the least enviable position. Bush has his battles, but this guy…!
MedCav is right. Pakistan without Musharraf doesn’t bear thinking about. I’m glad I’m not one those who must do so.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
When Musharraf’s ISI feeds him to dogs, and I believe they will eventually, then what?
Thank Brahma: the creator; Vishnu: the preserver and Shiva: the destroyer, that they have the counter bomb.
Horrible scenario, you betcha’, but it seems headed that way, regardless.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Interesting
TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faced a new round of sharp criticism at home Monday after he said Iran’s nuclear program is an unstoppable train without brakes. Reformers and conservatives said such tough talk only inflames the West as it considers further sanctions.
The criticism came even as new signs have arisen that Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is growing discontented with Ahmadinejad, whom he is believed to have supported in 2005 presidential elections.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254725,00.html
Ummmm Khamenei, show him his adored well, then PUSH.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
We shouldn’t discount India’s role in containing Pakistan. They would be far more alarmed than we at Pakistan’s slide into extremism, and with good reason. If widespread hostilities broke out, India would have every nuclear spear it owns pointed at Pakistan, which would make the Chinese very nervous, which would… It’s a scary, scary scenario. But the point is, Musharraf must surely know that if widespread hostilites did break out, and all the big dogs got in the fight, Pakistan would simply disappear off the map.