Surprise!
Tim Rutten's column in today's Los Angeles Times is a stunner. He suggests that it is entirely possible that between now and the election Osama bin Laden will be killed by the US with the aid of some new military technology and a "secret" plan by the current administration.
Friday, The Times' Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes reported that the United States has escalated its war against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies by "deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems that were instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq."
It's a story whose significance may extend well beyond the benighted hills and valleys of Pakistan's violent Pashtun hinterlands and onto the hustings of our current presidential campaign. Coupled with Thursday's report in the New York Times that President Bush has signed a secret order permitting Afghanistan-based U.S. special operations forces to cross into Pakistan without Islamabad's permission, the odds of an "October surprise" that could influence the general election have risen appreciably. [Emphasis added]
There are a couple of things really troubling about this report of the situation. First of all, I'm not so sure that the insurgency in Iraq has been crippled at all, but even if the insurgency has backed off a bit, I'm not so sure that this has been effected solely by the use of the new technology. Paying off some of the Sunni militia leaders certainly quieted them down, even if only for a brief time.
Second, and perhaps more important, the president's decision to send troops into Pakistan's tribal areas without the permission of the Pakistani government, while certainly in character with the administration's unbounded arrogance, appears to me to be fraught with all sorts of dangers, both for the next US administration and the fledgling Pakistani government trying to reimpose democracy after years of a military dictatorship. Such violations of a nation's sovereignty can't just be shrugged off, especially in that region and especially at this point.
But that isn't Rutten's point. His point is that President Bush might very well pull off the capture or, which is more likely, death of the man Americans believe was responsible for the devastation of the September 11, 2001 attack on the US, and that might have a profound effect on our November elections.
If U.S. special operations forces capture or kill Bin Laden, or if a CIA technician pushes a button and puts a Hellfire missile between his eyes, Bush will have made good on the vows he made seven years ago to bring the Al Qaeda leader to some sort of justice. In the eyes of many who supported him over the years, that would allow the president to leave office with at least part of his historical reputation intact.
There also are many Republican activists who must hope that an October surprise involving Bin Laden would give McCain -- unswerving supporter of the war and advocate of a muscular, hard-line foreign policy -- a boost by association. At the very least, anything that makes his connection to his party's now dismally unpopular president less of a stigma helps the GOP candidate.
Such an event certainly would allow for the ratcheting up of the already poisonously high testosterone levels of the party faithful, those who take great joy in chanting such mantras as "USA, USA, USA" and "Drill, baby, Drill". And that means that Sen. McCain and other Republican candidates may get the boost they need to recover from the last eight years.
The sad part is that the scenario posited by Tim Rutten is plausible and not the stuff of tin-foil hats. That the Bush administration would intentionally plan such a surprise would be in keeping with everything this cynical government has done while in office. And it just might work. Again.
Friday, The Times' Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes reported that the United States has escalated its war against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies by "deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems that were instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq."
It's a story whose significance may extend well beyond the benighted hills and valleys of Pakistan's violent Pashtun hinterlands and onto the hustings of our current presidential campaign. Coupled with Thursday's report in the New York Times that President Bush has signed a secret order permitting Afghanistan-based U.S. special operations forces to cross into Pakistan without Islamabad's permission, the odds of an "October surprise" that could influence the general election have risen appreciably. [Emphasis added]
There are a couple of things really troubling about this report of the situation. First of all, I'm not so sure that the insurgency in Iraq has been crippled at all, but even if the insurgency has backed off a bit, I'm not so sure that this has been effected solely by the use of the new technology. Paying off some of the Sunni militia leaders certainly quieted them down, even if only for a brief time.
Second, and perhaps more important, the president's decision to send troops into Pakistan's tribal areas without the permission of the Pakistani government, while certainly in character with the administration's unbounded arrogance, appears to me to be fraught with all sorts of dangers, both for the next US administration and the fledgling Pakistani government trying to reimpose democracy after years of a military dictatorship. Such violations of a nation's sovereignty can't just be shrugged off, especially in that region and especially at this point.
But that isn't Rutten's point. His point is that President Bush might very well pull off the capture or, which is more likely, death of the man Americans believe was responsible for the devastation of the September 11, 2001 attack on the US, and that might have a profound effect on our November elections.
If U.S. special operations forces capture or kill Bin Laden, or if a CIA technician pushes a button and puts a Hellfire missile between his eyes, Bush will have made good on the vows he made seven years ago to bring the Al Qaeda leader to some sort of justice. In the eyes of many who supported him over the years, that would allow the president to leave office with at least part of his historical reputation intact.
There also are many Republican activists who must hope that an October surprise involving Bin Laden would give McCain -- unswerving supporter of the war and advocate of a muscular, hard-line foreign policy -- a boost by association. At the very least, anything that makes his connection to his party's now dismally unpopular president less of a stigma helps the GOP candidate.
Such an event certainly would allow for the ratcheting up of the already poisonously high testosterone levels of the party faithful, those who take great joy in chanting such mantras as "USA, USA, USA" and "Drill, baby, Drill". And that means that Sen. McCain and other Republican candidates may get the boost they need to recover from the last eight years.
The sad part is that the scenario posited by Tim Rutten is plausible and not the stuff of tin-foil hats. That the Bush administration would intentionally plan such a surprise would be in keeping with everything this cynical government has done while in office. And it just might work. Again.
Labels: Afghanistan, Bush Legacy, Election 2008, Iraq War, Pakistan
posted by Diane at 4:42 AM
2 Comments:
the odds of an "October surprise" that could influence the general election have risen appreciably.
They were already pretty much overwhelming, nest paw; like three to one in favor.
That the Bush administration would intentionally plan such a surprise would be in keeping with everything this cynical government has done while in office. And it just might work. Again.
Yah think? The way McC(umst)ain and the Sarah-cooter been talking, I thought it might be russia, in the Caucasus, with a plunger-handle up the ass. But this scenario is as good as any.
In any case, I am totally certain that some kind of international political chicanery will indubitably ensue to provide yet ANOTHER reason why "white" people, and any other good-thinking Murkins ought NOT vote for the Kneegrow...
Which is why I trust that Obama has a response ready for such a possibility.
Something along the lines of "Why was it necessary to start two wars, both of which are still costing us billions of dollars a year, in order to do this? Why couldn't this have been done seven years ago WITHOUT the expenditure of so much money and so much innocent blood? Why couldn't this have been done WITHOUT destroying the country of Iraq and plunging it into a bloodbath the likes the country hasn't seen before? This is what happens when your national leaders think wars -- against anyone, at any time -- are the first and best answer to any international problem."
Well, I can hope, right?
Post a Comment
<< Home