Bin Laden in the Basement, Election in the Bag

Bin Laden in the Basement, Election in the Bag
Dr. Subodh Atal

In software development, one comes repeatedly across the same kinds of user or system requirements, which can be tackled by what are termed "software patterns". Software coders have perfected patterns that are simply generic units of code that can be leveraged to address each such set of requirements. If the code works well, the coders apply the standardized pattern again and again when they come across those requirements.

Politics is no different, politicians reach for the same set of tools when they need to win elections in democracies, or when they need to cling to power in dictatorships. The symbiotic Bush-Musharraf relationship after September 11 has become the epitome of patterns in the politics of the war on terror.

Under the right amount of pressure (usually and suspiciously coincident with the Bush administration's need to produce results for the domestic audience), Pakistan produces a high value target (HVT) or two. After the Daniel Pearl killing, when the spotlight was on the ISI's links to Al Qaeda, Abu Zubaidah was captured. In the run up to the Iraq invasion, when questions were being raised on whether the Afghanistan-Pakistan phase had been sufficiently resolved, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was snared.

In the aftermath of the early 2004 disclosure of the Pakistani nuclear proliferation network that spread nukes to at least North Korea, Iran, and Libya, Musharraf launched an incursion into the tribal areas with much fanfare. As Colin Powell reached Islamabad for an official visit, Pakistan claimed that Zawahiri was surrounded. Powell promptly rewarded Musharraf by naming Pakistan a non-NATO ally . Even as Powell's airplane was headed back to the US, Musharraf backtracked, first saying that the HVT was merely an Uzbek figure Tahir Yudeshev, and besides, Yuldeshev and his compatriots fled through a convenient tunnel.

The New Republic reported that Pakistan was being pressured to produce some HVTs to coincide with John Kerry's acceptance at the Boston Democratic convention. As if on cue, an Al Qaeda suspect was reported captured by Pakistan just hours before Kerry spoke. After the Democratic National Convention, Pakistan started reporting captures of "Al Qaeda" left and right. Bush dutifully reported that he had "changed" Pakistan at the Republican National Convention. What he did not mention was that Pakistan was continuing to refuse to allow the IAEA to investigate the nuclear proliferation network that had supplied many of America's enemies with nuclear technology, and continued to be the most significant potential source of future nuclear terrorism. To gauge the level of confidence in Musharraf's promises, consider this: he had given "400% guarantees" in late 2001 that his nukes were safe. Then his nukes were discovered being shipped to North Korea in 2002, and to Libya in 2003.

Now we are in the home stretch of the US presidential elections, with merely weeks left for US citizens to decide whether to return Bush to power so he can continue his brand of the war on terror. Again on cue, a US official is reporting that Bin Laden could be close to capture. Considering that Pakistan's ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has euphemistically mentioned that "Bin Laden is being held in Musharraf's basement", such an October surprise would hardly be a surprise. Excepting such an event close to the election would almost certainly sway enough "undecideds" to ensure Bush's victory in November. And if Musharraf does deliver Bin Laden, it would likely be at a very high price. What is the price that the Bush administration is willing to pay?

Putting politics aside, will America be safe as a result of what appears to be a pattern of suspiciously timed "Al Qaeda" captures that appear to benefit both Musharraf and Bush? For answering this question, one has to consider the inconvenient facts that are not talked about in public by US officials. For example, Pakistan's nuclear proliferation network has been allowed to remain uninvestigated. It is no surprise that recent articles in major US newspapers talked about the high likelihood of nuclear terrorism in the US in the coming years. The Republican National Convention, while talking about US "liberation" of lands, did not talk about the radicalization of countless Muslims around the world as a result of the images of death and desctruction in Iraq. Bin Laden, like Saddam, may be in US custody before November, but how many Bin Ladens have been created after a year and a half of Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya images from Iraq?

The convergence of a potentially significant number of Muslims around the world becoming radicalized, with the availability of numerous sources of nuclear weapons, such as the Pakistani arsenal and the ex-Soviet nukes, is the kind of perfect storm that is being overlooked in the euphoria over well-timed "Al Qaeda" captures that appear to benefit politicians. It is not too late for the US media to look beyond the pattern and start asking tough questions about the status of the Pakistani arsenal and its proliferation network, as well as the plans to help secure the nuclear material from the ex-Soviet arsenal. Only then will we be able to truly answer the question: are we safer than we were before 9/11?