| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE PENTAGON,
whose satellites and drones are able to detect sleeping guerrillas in
subterranean caverns, claims it knows nothing of these flights. When asked
about the mysterious airlift at a recent Pentagon briefing, Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, denied knowledge of such flights. Myers backpedaled a
bit, saying that, given the severe geography of the country, it might be
possible to duck in and out of mountain valleys and conduct such an
airlift undetected.
But Rumsfeld
intervened. With his talent for being blunt and ambiguous at the same
time, he said: “I have received absolutely no information that would
verify or validate statements about airplanes moving in or out. I doubt
them.”
SEE NO
EVIL |
|
|
|
Western reporters actually in Kunduz in the days after it
fell this week found much to dispel that doubt. Reports first appeared in
the Indian press, quoting intelligence sources who cited unusual radar
contacts and an airlift of Pakistani troops out of the city. Their
presence among the “enemy” may shock some readers, but not those who have
paid attention to Afghanistan. Pakistan had hundreds of military advisers
in Afghanistan before Sept. 11 helping the Taliban fight the Northern
Alliance. Hundreds more former soldiers actively joined Taliban regiments,
and many Pakistani volunteers were among the non-Afghan legions of
al-Qaida.
Last Saturday, The New York Times
picked up the scent, quoting Northern Alliance soldiers in a Page 1 story
describing a two-day airlift by Pakistani aircraft, complete with
witnesses describing groups of armed men awaiting evacuation at the
airfield, then still in Taliban hands.
Another report, this in the Times of London, quotes an alliance
soldier angrily denouncing the flights, which he reasonably assumed were
conducted with America’s blessing.
“We had
decided to kill all of them, and we are not happy with America for letting
the planes come,” said the soldier, Mahmud Shah.
IN
DENIAL |
|
|
|
The credibility
gap between these reports from the field and the “no comments” from the
U.S. administration are large enough to drive a Marine Expeditionary Unit
through. Calls by MSNBC.com and NBC News to U.S. military and intelligence
officials shed no light on the evacuation reports, though they clearly
were a hot topic of conversation. “Oh, you mean ‘Operation Evil Airlift’?”
one military source joked. “Look, I can’t confirm anything about those
reports. As far as I know, they just aren’t happening.” Three other
military and defense sources simply denied any knowledge.
Something is up. It certainly appears to any reasonable
observer that aircraft of some kind or another were taking off and landing
in Kunduz’s final hours in Taliban hands. Among the many questions that
grow out of this reality:
 Was the passenger manifest on these aircraft limited to
Pakistani military and intelligence men, or did it include some of the
more prominent zealots Pakistan contributed to the ranks of the Taliban
and al-Qaida?
What kind of deal was struck between the United States and
Pakistan to allow this?
What safeguards did the United States demand to ensure the
evacuated Pakistanis did not include men who will come back to haunt
us?
What was done with the civilian volunteers once they arrived
home in Pakistan? Where they arrested? Debriefed? Taken to safe houses? Or
a state banquet?
WHY NOT ADMIT
IT
The answers remain elusive. If
the passengers were simply Pakistani military and intelligence men, and
not civilian extremists, what possible motive is there for concealing the
truth about their evacuation? Pakistan may believe that no one has noticed
the warmth of its intelligence ties to the Taliban and even al-Qaida, but
surely the Pentagon isn’t operating under this illusion, is it? This news
organization has quoted U.S. intelligence sources as far back as 1997 as
saying that ties between Pakistan’s intelligence service and al-Qaida, and
links to the Taliban — a movement nurtured by Pakistan — are undeniable. |
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, the United
States can easily explain why it would have allowed a military ruler under
intense pressure at home to adopt an unpopular pro-American stance in this
war to evacuate some elite intelligence and military forces from a chaotic
battlefield. But only if, in fact, the planes were limited to evacuating
those people. |
|
|
|
The lack of a
forthright answer to this question suggests otherwise, and that is a great
shame. The history of American policy in Southwest Asia, from the shah of
Iran to Saddam Hussein to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is marred by one
example after another of short-term decisions that stored up enormous
trouble for later. We failed for decades to find common ground with the
world’s largest democracy, India. We failed to temper the shah’s domestic
abuses in Iran in the name of anti-communism and wound up with the
ayatollahs. We decided not to rile our Gulf War coalition allies by
pushing onto to Baghdad and find ourselves a decade later wondering how to
deal with Saddam Hussein. We pumped Afghanistan and Pakistan with billions
of dollars worth of weapons and military know-how to fight the Soviet
invasion, but then adopted the Pontius Pilate approach in victory, washing
our hands of these struggling nations as soon as Moscow
withdrew.
Now, are we careening down the
same road with a nuclear-armed Pakistan? Are we allowing an army of
anti-American zealots to live and fight another day for the sake of our
convenient marriage with Pakistan’s current dictator? I wish I could quote
Rumsfeld. I wish I could say “I doubt it.” I can’t.
Mail your thoughts to Michael
Moran, request to join (or be removed from) his email notification
list.
Or, read
past Brave New World columns here.
|
|
| |
