France and Germany, Yes/Poland, NO!

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
This is very disappointing, we should shaft those that do not help where possible and reward those that do:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11441

Shafting the Poles
By Ralph Peters
New York Post | December 23, 2003


The decisive turning point in the West's long struggle against Islamic conquerors came on the afternoon of Sept. 12, 1683, during the last Turkish siege of Vienna. Severely outnumbered Polish hussars - the finest cavalry Europe ever produced - charged into the massed Ottoman ranks with lowered lances and a wild battle cry.
Led by the valiant King Jan Sobieski, the Poles had marched to save Vienna while other Europeans looked away. The French - surprise! - had cut a deal with the sultan. (To Louis XIV, humbling the rival Habsburgs trumped the fate of Western civilization.)

The odds were grim. Many of King Jan's nobles feared disaster. But Sobieski risked his kingdom - actually a rough-and-tumble democracy - to save a continent.

On that fateful afternoon, the Polish cavalry struck the Turkish lines with such force that 2,000 lances shattered. The charge stunned the Ottoman army. A hundred thousand Turks ran for the Danube.

No army from the Islamic world ever posed such a threat to the West again.

Poland's thanks for its courage? In the next century, the country was sliced up like a pie by the ungrateful Habsburgs, along with the Romanovs of Russia and the Prussian Hohenzollerns. It was the most cynical action in European history until the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which divided Poland again in 1939.

But the Poles never gave up their belief in their country - or in freedom. During our own revolution, our first allies were Polish freedom fighters such as Casimir Pulaski and Tadeusz Kosciusko. (Paris only joined the fight when it looked like we might win. And France intervened to spite Britain, not to help us.)

Throughout the 19th century, Poles fought for freedom wherever the struggle raged, in Latin America, Greece and Italy, and on the Union side in our Civil War. Although their country had been raped by the great powers of Europe, Poles kept her cause alive.

Again and again, Poles rose against their occupiers, only to be savagely put down, with their finest young men slaughtered or marched to Siberian prisons. Then, at the end of the Great War, Poland suddenly reappeared on the maps.

What did the Poles do? They immediately saved Western civilization yet again. In the now-forgotten "Miracle on the Vistula," a patched-together Polish army turned back the Red hordes headed for Berlin. One of history's most brilliant campaigns, it saved defeated Germany from a communist takeover.

Poland's thanks? The slaughter of World War II. Then the Soviet occupation.

But the Poles never gave up. Their language, their faith - and their martial traditions - were maintained with rigor and pride. Of all the countries that gained their freedom as the Soviet Union collapsed, none had struggled for liberty as relentlessly as Poland.

Now the Poles are defending freedom again. In Iraq. While the establishment media agonize over the fickle moods of Paris and Berlin, there's little mention in the press of the superb contribution made by our Polish allies - at great cost to their own country.

In the words of an American officer who works closely with them, "Poland has taken to the Iraq mission for idealistic and principled purposes: Its leadership and military truly believe that freedom and justice are universal values worth fighting for."

To how many other nations would those words apply?

Poland has deployed 2,500 of its best soldiers to Iraq. It sent $64 million worth of its newest equipment - which operations in Iraq will ruin. Warsaw selected its finest officers to command and staff the Multinational Division Center South. A Polish major general commands a total of 12,000 troops from 22 nations with responsibility for a sector previously held by twice as many U.S. Marines. The Polish performance has been flawless.

Their reward? Surely America must recognize such a great contribution from an economically struggling ally - at a time when Polish troops also support peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan and the Balkans?

Sorry. Turkey, which stabbed us as deeply in the back as it could on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom, will receive a minimum of $2 billion from Washington - and the same elements in the Rumsfeld cabal who failed to plan for the occupation of Iraq hope to increase our aid to Ankara to $5 billion.

Pakistan, which refuses to press home the fight against al Qaeda, will get billions from Washington. The repressive Egyptian regime will get a few billion, too, as it does every year. Even Yemen will get a welfare check from Uncle Sugar.

And Poland? Like the Czech Republic, which sent a few medics to the Persian Gulf then withdrew them in panic, Poland will get a standard package of $12 million for NATO-related programs. Other than some logistical support in Iraq, that's it. Strategic peanuts for our most enthusiastic ally on the European continent.

Poland did have one request - a humble one, in the great scheme of things. Warsaw asked for $47 million to modernize six used, American-built C-130 transport aircraft and to purchase American-built HMMWV all-terrain vehicles so elite Polish units could better integrate operations with American forces. Much of the money would go right back to U.S. factories and workers.

Our response? We stiffed them.

For once, the Pentagon and the State Department agree: No can do. Impossible. Our pocket are empty. Got to FedEx every penny to our favorite dictators.

It's a mistake to over-idealize any nation. But if there's a land of heroes anywhere between the English Channel and the coast of California, it's Poland. Our Polish allies have taken a brave, costly, principled stand for freedom and democracy in Iraq. They desperately want to be seen by Washington as reliable friends in this treacherous world.

The least we could do is to treat them with respect.
 
Agreed. We really do have to get over shafting our friends.
 
Best info I could find:

A list of countries among the willing include, accurate as of March 28, 2003, (1991 participants are in italics): Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain [1], Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica [2], Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, United Kingdom, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait [3], Latvia, Lithuania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau [4], the Philippines, Poland, Portugal (but parliament may censure the PM), Qatar [5], Romania [6], Rwanda, Slovakia, South Korea (but Parliament won't vote on whether to send troops), Spain, Republic of China (on Taiwan), Turkey, Uganda, the United States, Uzbekistan. Total: 37 confirmed; 10 not confirmed.

Nations unwilling include (1991 participants are in italics): Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada (but some Canadian troops on exchange programs are involved)[7], Cape Verde, People's Republic of China, Comoros [8], Croatia (but is providing airspace), Cuba, the Czech Republic (but is supplying anti-chemical specialists), Djibouti [9], Ecuador, Egypt [10], France, Germany (airspace use), Greece (airspace use), Guinea-Bissau, India, Iran, Iraq, Jordan [11], Lebanon [12], Malaysia, Mauritania [13], Morocco [14], Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway (but will provide humanitarian aid), Oman [15], Pakistan, Palestinian Authority [16], Russia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia [17], Slovenia (providing air space), Solomon Islands [18][19], Somalia [20], Sri Lanka, Sweden (but will provide humanitarian aid), Switzerland, Sudan [21], Syria [22], Tunisia [23], Ukraine (providing anti-chemical weapon troops to Kuwait), United Arab Emirates [24], the Vatican, Venezuela, Yemen [25], Zimbabwe. Total: 57 confirmed.

Nations declared neutral or with a non-aggressive stance: Ireland (declared neutrality), Singapore (declared itself a member of the 'coalition for the immediate disarmament of Iraq,' not the 'coalition of the willing'), Thailand (declared neutrality) Total: 3 confirmed.

Nations that have not announced a stance or whose intentions are yet unclear (1991 participants are in italics): Andorra, Argentina, Austria, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia, Botswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Chechnya, Chile, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland (but see: Anneli Jäätteenmäki), Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, the Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico (flip flopping), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of the Congo, Saint Kitts, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Sahara, Zambia. Total: 93
 
Bush's treatment of our allies has been awful. Clearly, unless you kiss Bush's behind, you get no aid. Unless you kowtow to Bush and do whatever he wants, your companies aren't allowed to bid on contracts (even though we in America are for a free-market economy). Coalition of the willing? No, Coalition of those who agree with Bush. The unwilling? No, those who aren't willing to be led around like Bush's puppy dog, and simply had a profound disagreement with him.

Bush and his handlers have a very bad mentality, either you are with us or against us. There is no in between. I disagree with many of you on this board politically, but I do not then make you out to be my enemy. Reasonable people, reasonable nations, can disagree. According to Bush, the only reasonable position is his. This is dangerous. This is how dictators behave, not leaders of democratic nations.
 
Treating our allies less well than our enemies is a time honored activity for the US, not just this administration.
 
originally posted by acludem
Bush and his handlers have a very bad mentality, either you are with us or against us. There is no in between. I disagree with many of you on this board politically, but I do not then make you out to be my enemy. Reasonable people, reasonable nations, can disagree. According to Bush, the only reasonable position is his. This is dangerous. This is how dictators behave, not leaders of democratic nations.
_______________________ _______________________
contrast

qoute acludem from a forum two minutes ago:
______________________________

Bush has only met my expecations, which means he's been a complete failure. He and his administration have been nothing short of disastrous for the American people.

I have yet to decide on a candidate in the Democratic primary, but any of them, short of Al Sharpton, would be a better President than Bush, and between Bush and Sharpton it's a toss-up.
_____________________________

:D explain?
 
Gee, don'cha know? Went into Afghanistan and had whole world with us, of course that was before Iraq, when the French actively impeded our plea to the UNSC. Ah well, we went anyway. Things are looking up there, but a long way to go.

Stocks up, unemployment down. Inventories dwindingly, productivity going up.

Libya wants to disarm. North Korea wants to talk with US and the other 5 countries we insisted be involved. (Gee, not always unilateralist, actually not even once.)

Yeah, that is one strong case. :eek2:
 
I'm not sure what you are contrasting nbdy, but the point is Bush has been a complete failure at international relations. The mission in Afghanistan involved finding terrorists, at least on the surface. There were some in the world who opposed our actions there as well. There was strong evidence that the Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda terrorists, and we went in after Osama Bin Laden (obviously we have yet to find him). The Afghan people overthrew the Taliban, we may have helped. There was no such evidence that Saddam was harboring terrorist (though he was likely helping to fund them) or that he had WMDs. Pretty cut and dried difference there. To get back to the topic at hand, we shouldn't say because a country's government had an honest disagreement with our government, a company located there shouldn't be able to bid for contracts in the rebuilding process.
 
Originally posted by acludem
I'm not sure what you are contrasting nbdy,
___________________________
Simple. You were being a dicator, while calling other people dictators, and stating that you would vote along partylines if it meant the worst choice otherwise .

Originally posted by acludem
but the point is Bush has been a complete failure at international relations.
___________________________
With whom, is all I have to ask?

Originally posted by acludem
The mission in Afghanistan involved finding terrorists, at least on the surface. There were some in the world who opposed our actions there as well. [? Saddam, Arafat :confused: ?] There was strong evidence that the Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda terrorists, and we went in after Osama Bin Laden (obviously we have yet to find him).
________________________
Yes, but we totally destroyed his hive, and removed the Taliban while we were at it. The loya jirga is set to vote on the constitution and the only thing opposing them is a bunch of hillcrazy poppy-dealing warlords. Osama had to declare bankruptcy and move to Iraq.

Originally posted by acludem
The Afghan people overthrew the Taliban, we may have helped.
_________________________
You are a master at understatement and self-delusion.

Originally posted by acludem
There was no such evidence that Saddam was harboring terrorist (though he was likely helping to fund them) or that he had WMDs.
__________________________
He was most certainly funding Hamas, at the least. There WAS a twenty-year pile of evidence that saddam in all probability had WMDs. The entire international community acted on that. We have yet to find proof he didn't have them. If we had not bothered with sanctions he would have had WMDs before Clinton could say his first inaugural address. Meanwhile people starved for 12 years because we couldn't just go in and get it over with.


Originally posted by acludem
To get back to the topic at hand, we shouldn't say because a country's government had an honest disagreement with our government, a company located there shouldn't be able to bid for contracts in the rebuilding process.
__________________________
We shouldn't give F-g diddely squat.

We Should consider Poland above all because noone from the international community needs it or deserves it more.
 
The mission in Afghanistan involved finding terrorists, at least on the surface. There were some in the world who opposed our actions there as well.
posted by acludem

Your point? Is it that we should wait for 100% concensus? The 'world' should become the imitator of the proposed EU?

Sorry, but the US should and it appears is going to keep its sovereignty. Most in this country agree that we cannot have enemies vetoing what is determined to be in our best interests, by our elected representatives.

You vote Green, enjoy.
 
Osama had to declare bankruptcy and move to Iraq.
Is there proof to this statement nbdysfu or is this your supposition?

He was most certainly funding Hamas, at the least. There WAS a twenty-year pile of evidence that saddam in all probability had WMDs. The entire international community acted on that. We have yet to find proof he didn't have them. If we had not bothered with sanctions he would have had WMDs before Clinton could say his first inaugural address. Meanwhile people starved for 12 years because we couldn't just go in and get it over with.

How much of the country do you have to NOT find any WMD's before you officially declare he had none?

Also, people starve here every year and have been for decades, who should come in and save them?
 
I was looking for something I read last night about the US finding 500 missiles in the desert, but no luck so far. I did find this though and thought some of you might find it interesting, I like the closing:

TERRORISM: The Unexpected Peace Dividend

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=URBANG.HTM

December 29, 2003: The War on Terror has had an unintended, and welcome, side effect; world peace. Since September 11, 2001, and the aggressive American operations against terrorist organizations, several long time wars have ended, or moved sharply in that direction. Many of these wars get little attention in American media, but have killed hundreds of thousands of people over the last decade. These include conflicts in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Chad, Congo, Kashmir, Israel, Kurdistan, Philippines, Burundi, Somalia and Sudan. Some of these conflicts diminished because they had been going on for a while and, as is usually the case with wars, eventually the participants are worn down and make peace. But in all these sudden outbreaks of peace there was another factor; an American crackdown on terrorist activities around the world. The rebels in most of these wars depended on money raised outside their country to keep the fighting going, and on gun runners able to get weapons in. American anti-terrorism operations, energized by the shock of the September 11, 2001 attacks, now included cooperation from many nations, especially in Europe, that had tolerated, on their territory, fund raising, recruiting and public relations efforts by various rebel groups. No more. Most of these rebel organizations had already been declared "terrorist groups" (which they were, as most rebellions use terror, the American Revolution included). Once the U.S. and other nations began to crack down on the fund raising and other activities, it became difficult to keep many wars going.

But there was more going on than shutting down fund raising. There was now enormous pressure on gun runners, smugglers and suppliers of forged documents and irregular travel services. The same illegal "service industries" that al Qaeda depended on were also used by dozens of revolutionary groups. All were now being pressured by police world wide, and many were shut down. Now it was harder to run illegal weapons into Africa, South America and South Asia. The East European governments that had looked the other way for so long (in return getting a piece of the action), began enforcing laws against gun running and illegal logistics.

And then there were those countries that actually encouraged and supported (for a variety of reasons), or just tolerated, rebel groups in neighboring nations. The U.S. was leaning on that sort of activity as well. So Libya stopped supporting various African rebel groups. Other African countries that were acting like Libya also shut down their support for rebels across their borders. This also made it more difficult for rebel groups to keep themselves going.

All of a sudden, rebels in many conflicts around the world discovered that negotiation offered better prospects than did continued fighting. And so it came to pass that in the wake of September 11, 2001, peace broke out in many odd parts of the world. And hardly anyone noticed.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Is there proof to this statement nbdysfu or is this your supposition?
____________________
Yes and no. There were reports about a month ago in the news that he was moving his base of operations to Iraq. I Assume that he was also bankrupt because the Taliban has been uprooted in Afghanistan and they are now listed among the coalition of the willing, and as Kathi also mentioned, it is much harder for terrorists to get funding.


Originally posted by DKSuddeth
How much of the country do you have to NOT find any WMD's before you officially declare he had none?
_________________
Last I heard they still had unmarked ammunition dumps the size of manhattan and the whole desert to search. Have there been any recent articles on the progress of that?
 
There were reports about a month ago in the news that he was moving his base of operations to Iraq.

I have not really heard anything about that, be that as it may...if its about a month ago that would make it after the regime had been removed. Do you wish to imply that means bin laden is in cahoots with hussein?

I Assume that he was also bankrupt because the Taliban has been uprooted in Afghanistan and they are now listed among the coalition of the willing, and as Kathi also mentioned, it is much harder for terrorists to get funding.

OBL had(has?) millions due to his family split before he was disowned( at least publicly) and I seriously doubt that he had all his money in afghanistan. Yes, it is much harder for a terrorist, or terror group, to get financing but we should never ASSUME anything if we are to remain on the offensive.

Last I heard they still had unmarked ammunition dumps the size of manhattan and the whole desert to search. Have there been any recent articles on the progress of that?

Not to my knowledge and I doubt that there will be since the teams have shifted priorities from searching to security.
 
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3660179&p1=0

Bin Laden’s Iraq Plans
At a secret meeting, bin Laden’s reps give bad news to the Taliban: Qaeda fighters are shifting to a new front
U.S. troops in Afghanistan may face less resistance as Qaeda leadership diverts fighters to Iraq
By Sami Yousafzai, Ron Moreau and Michael Hirsh


Newsweek


Dec. 15 issue - During the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, three senior Qaeda representatives allegedly held a secret meeting in Afghanistan with two top Taliban commanders.


The confab took place in mid-November in the remote, Taliban-controlled mountains of Khowst province near the Pakistan border, a region where Al Qaeda has found it easy to operate—frequently even using satellite phones despite U.S. surveillance.

At that meeting, according to Taliban sources, Osama bin Laden’s men officially broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan’s ousted fundamentalist regime. Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.

All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said. Why? Because the terror chieftain and his top lieutenants see a great opportunity for killing Americans and their allies in Iraq and neighboring countries such as Turkey, according to Taliban sources who complain that their own movement will suffer. (Though certainly not as much as Washington would like: last week Taliban guerrillas killed a U.N. census worker in an ambush, and a rocket struck near the U.S. Embassy in Kabul only hours after a visit by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.) Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the “American crusaders” and that the Iraqi insurgency has been “100 percent successful so far,” according to a Taliban participant at the mid-November meeting who goes by the nom de guerre Sharafullah.

Fluent in Arabic, Sharafullah tells NEWSWEEK he acted as the meeting’s official translator. He has proved to be a reliable source in previous stories. Prior to 9/11, he was Mullah Omar’s translator in face-to-face meetings with bin Laden. And Sharafullah has translated correspondence between the two leaders. Another Taliban source separately confirmed that the meeting occurred, and he corroborated other parts of Sharafullah’s account.


If true, bin Laden’s shift of focus could be unsettling news for George W. Bush. The president is eager to quell the Iraqi insurgency and establish a democratic, stable Iraq as he heads into the 2004 re-election campaign. Until now, the attacks on Americans and other Coalition members have come mainly from local Saddam loyalists rather than an influx of foreign jihadists. But if the Taliban sources are correct, bin Laden may be aiming to help turn Iraq into “the central front” in the war on terror. That is how Bush himself described Iraq in a September speech, when he said, “We are fighting that enemy [there] today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets.” But the president may be getting more than he bargained for. With 79 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq in November—far more than in any previous month—many Democrats now see Bush’s troubles in Iraq as the central front in their campaign to unseat him.

Despite bin Laden’s apparently fresh interest in Iraq, sources in the region say there remains scant evidence that he had links to Saddam before the war. And U.S. officials who have sought to establish those links suggest now that Al Qaeda doesn’t have substantial resources to divert to Iraq. “There just doesn’t seem to be evidence of that,” says a U.S. intel official. Asked if Washington believes the Ramadan meeting took place, CIA spokesman William Harlow declined to comment.

Sharafullah described the Qaeda-Taliban meeting while sitting down openly with a NEWSWEEK reporter at a tea shop in Peshawar’s Kissakhani bazaar. That’s not unusual: Afghan Taliban officials often move freely in Pakistani cities despite President Pervez Musharraf’s vows to crack down. Even Mullah Omar himself, who has been sought by U.S. forces for two years, may be operating inside Pakistan, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told NEWSWEEK in an interview on Nov. 28. “Mullah Omar was spotted praying in a mosque in Quetta 10 days ago,” Karzai said. “This is the first time I have said this publicly.” Karzai alleged that Taliban rebels were getting support in Pakistan—Quetta has become their main base, he said—and he asked Musharraf to stop Pakistani Islamic groups from providing sanctuary. (“It is a lie that Mullah Omar is in Pakistan,” retorted Pakistan Information Minister Sheik Rashid Ahmed.)

Sharafullah, smartly dressed in a shalwar kameez, wool sweater and black boots, said bin Laden was represented at the Ramadan meeting by three Arabs in their mid-40s who were armed with new Kalashnikovs and bedecked in hand grenades. The Arabs informed Mullah Omar’s two representatives—one a former cabinet minister and the other a senior Taliban military commander—that bin Laden believed Al Qaeda had to widen the scope of its anti-infidel efforts as new opportunities arose. According to Sharafullah, the Qaeda representatives quoted bin Laden as saying, “The spilling of American blood is easy in Iraq. The Americans are drowning in deep, rising water.” Many Qaeda men are keen to go to Iraq, bin Laden’s delegates at the meeting allegedly added, and they again quoted “the sheik” as saying: “I’m giving men who are thirsty a chance to drink deeply.”

Bin Laden, they said, had also decided to “reorganize the distribution of funding” by reducing Al Qaeda’s monthly payment to the Afghan resistance from $3 million to $1.5 million, according to Sharafullah. Bin Laden’s men pointed out that raising and distributing funds has been complicated by the U.S. crackdown on jihadi charitable foundations, bank accounts of terror-related organizations and money transfers. Nonetheless, bin Laden wanted to “assure” the Afghan resistance that it would receive the promised amount. “We will never leave you alone,” the terror chief allegedly said through his representatives.

Judging from bin Laden’s taped messages over the years, his strategy has always been to sap America’s will and drive U.S. troops out of Arab lands altogether. While it remains unclear how well bin Laden is still able to direct or coordinate his far-flung cells and franchises, the most recent audiotaped message attributed to him, in October, calls on young Muslims to fight a holy war in Iraq. The New York Times reported Saturday that Qaeda operatives are also heading to Iraq from Europe. Some key Taliban sources claim there are more than 1,000 Qaeda fighters, military trainers and advisers who work closely with the Afghan resistance. These sources say at least one third of these Qaeda militants are now being sent to the Mideast. Mohammad Amir, a 32-year-old Taliban intelligence agent in Pakistan, says that of some 350 Qaeda fighters who operated out of Waziristan, an unregulated tribal area of Pakistan, nearly one half have already pulled out and headed for Iraq and neighboring countries.

The Taliban sources paint a portrait of a Qaeda network that has found new ways to operate, despite a U.S. dragnet in Central and South Asia. U.S. officials adamantly deny they have skimped on resources—intelligence or military—in that region. But there is evidence that the diversion of U.S. attention to Iraq has given Al Qaeda some breathing room, and that U.S. dependence on Pakistani troops and Afghan warlords is proving inadequate, perhaps even counter-productive, against the terror network. Over the past year, NEWSWEEK has learned, the CIA and British intelligence have been at odds over how badly the Taliban and Al Qaeda were damaged in the region. “The British were more prone to say the Taliban and Al Qaeda were coming back,” says a U.S. official who is privy to intel discussions, and who believes the Bush administration downplayed the threat in order to switch its focus to Iraq.

Many Qaeda operatives appear to be traveling to the Mideast via the long, overland route through Iran. But the Bush administration, preoccupied with Iraq, has been reluctant to take a harder line toward Iran over its role as a terrorist haven. “The Iranians and some Arab countries like Syria are breathing easier because the United States is bogged down in Iraq,” says one —Arab ambassador to Washington. Abdullah Ramezanzadeh, an Iranian government spokesman, says Tehran is arresting Qaeda suspects, but he notes that “before we consider America’s best interests, we have to consider our own people’s interests.”

Iran is an ideal transit station for Al Qaeda because it borders Afghanistan and Pakistan to its west and Iraq and Turkey to its east. Abdul Alkozai, a portly, black-turbaned Taliban intelligence and logistical officer along the Pakistani-Afghan border, says that two months ago bin Laden ordered 24 Qaeda-affiliated Turkish fighters to withdraw from Waziristan and head home to Turkey, also through Iran. Bin Laden has also dispatched some of his key senior aides to the Iraqi front over the past months. Three months ago he ordered Abdel Hadi al Iraqi, an Iraqi Baathist who fell out with Saddam in the 1980s and later became a Qaeda training-camp commander in Khowst, to leave bin Laden’s hideout in northeastern Afghanistan and head to Iraq, Taliban sources say.

Mullah omar has been dismayed by the apparent redirection of Qaeda forces, these same sources say. According to Sharafullah, bin Laden’s representatives at the November meeting counseled the Taliban to unite the Afghan resistance. The Qaeda leader urged the Taliban to coordinate with the other main anti-U.S. and anti-Karzai guerrilla outfits, which are run by Afghan warlords Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Saed Akbar Agha.

Mullah Omar’s official spokesman, Hamid Agha, denied to NEWSWEEK in a satellite-telephone interview that the Taliban had financial or military problems. “We have enough money to fund our resistance,” he said from an undisclosed location. The resurgent Taliban say they have been buoyed by an influx of hundreds of former Taliban fighters into their ranks over the past year. Many have rejoined because local warlords allied with U.S. forces and Karzai have persecuted them in their villages, both Taliban and U.S. intel sources say. “These repressive, pro-American warlords have been our best recruiting tool,” says Rahman Hotaki, a former Transport Ministry official and now a Taliban operative in Waziristan. “Warlords are pushing people to leave the warmth of their blankets at home and join us in our caves.” Hotaki admits that the departure of Qaeda trainers will hurt the Taliban. “We need more, not fewer, Qaeda experts, especially in explosives and other military technologies,” he says. “We can’t fight without foreign financial support.” But if bin Laden’s Taliban allies are to be believed, the Qaeda leader may no longer be sympathetic to their entreaties. It appears that he, like his mortal enemy George W. Bush, may be seeking to make Iraq center stage in the war on terror.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Zahid Hussain in Islamabad and Babak Dehghanpisheh in Iran

© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.
 
good article. it doesn't support the theory that bin laden is on the run or broke though. It almost looks like he anticipated a better fight in iraq using the same type of strategy that the US uses......'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.
 

Forum List

Back
Top