What goes around comes around but who remembers?

What goes around comes around but by then no one remembers. (See 1 below.)

Several interesting editorial in today's WSJ. David Malpass' "Budget Strain" warns extending existing rates is called a tax cut and then permanent new taxes are attached to these so called cuts. It is the perfidious underhanded magic act of the current Congress.

Then Brett Stephens, in his op ed entitled "Allies," recounts how baseless the word has come to mean. With weak allies who needs enemies? Countries that make-up NATO have constructed a paper tiger.

Relationships according to Bokhari. (See 2 below.)

Iran is progressing and Democrats in Congress are listening to Murtha.

Dick

1) By Ed Koch (Former Mayor of NY)


A few days ago, The New York Times published a truly frightening article
on insurgent battlefield tactics in Iraq. The article reported that
"Insurgents are likely to continue combining car bombs with chlorine gas
and other chemicals to launch attacks similar to three in recent weeks
that spewed chlorine and sickened scores of Iraqi, the military warned
Thursday."

Chlorine gas was first used as a weapon by Germany in World War One.
France and Britain responded with poison gas of their own. Their lungs
destroyed, tens of thousands of soldiers on both sides choked to death.
Thousands more were wounded. Gas attacks were so horrible that neither
side used poison gas in World War Two.

But between 1980 and 1988, Saddam Hussein used poison gas against Iraqi
Kurds and against the Iranian army. Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda
terrorists have not hesitated to employ the worst tactics of terror,
using car bombs in marketplaces killing and injuring thousands of
innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as torturing and beheading civilians,
American and Iraqi, in their efforts to drive the U.S. out of Iraq. Now
they are using chlorine gas. Are they practicing tactics to use against
us here at home?

When the U.S. leaves Iraq, as the Democrats promise they will force
President Bush to do, will we face the prospect of emboldened Jihadists,
with the cry of "God is Great" on their lips, blowing Americans up here
in the States? If terrorists explode radioactive bombs and tank trucks
of chlorine gas in American cities, or worse still, full-fledged nuclear
weapons, what will our reaction be? Will we be like the English and
Spanish who, when their commuter trains were blown up in London and
Madrid, rolled over and surrendered to terrorist demands?

In response to terror attacks on its soil, Spain withdrew its troops
from Iraq and changed its government. Britain's Labor Party repudiated
its leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair, ordering him to resign by next
September, as well as beginning the reduction of its military forces in
Iraq. Those forces, once totaling 40,000, are now less than 8,000 and
scheduled to largely be withdrawn between now and 2008. Both President
Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice referred to these announced
British withdrawals as planned, acceptable to the U.S. and a victory
over the insurgents and terrorists. That statement, had it been uttered
by Pinocchio, would have lengthened his nose.

Will the next President, Democrat or Republican, respond by withdrawing
our troops in abject fear and sue for peace? What will peace cost?
Perhaps conversion to Islam. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and
the leaders of al-Qaeda, bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, have publicly stated
all our sins will be forgiven if we convert and urged President Bush to
lead the way with his personal conversion.

Of course, many of those in and out of Congress who have led the
struggle to bring our troops home will laugh at the thought that
conversion of the governmental leaders of the U.S. or the payment of
tribute by the U.S. will ever come to pass. There were many who believed
they could tame Hitler who laid his plans out in detail in Mein Kampf
before the beginning of the projected 1,000 year reign of the Third
Reich -- a Third Reich brought to an end, through the combined efforts
of the U.S., Great Britain and the U.S.S.R. But the cost was horrendous.
More than 400,000 American service men and women died, along with
382,000 British soldiers and ten million Russian soldiers. Millions of
civilians were killed around the world.

And yet, despite all the horror and carnage of the past, we don't appear
to be learning from history. We don't seem to remember that appeasement
never works. It didn't work at Munich in 1938 with Chamberlain's
infamous statement that we had achieved "peace in our time" with Hitler.
It won't work now. Promises that it will leave Iraq have not bought
peace for Britain. British authorities now say the danger of terror
attacks inside Britain is greater than ever, with thousands of
home-grown Jihadists ready to attack.

Why won't we take those who threaten us at their word? Why do we
continue to make excuses for their threatening behavior until finally we
be forced to act because they have exploded the dirty bomb or the
real nuclear bomb in our homeland?

There will come a time when it may be too late to simply respond to an
attack. As a result of such an attack on our homeland, we may be so
physically injured and suffered so many casualties as to cause us to
consider surrender. We may by then have lost our national will as to>make it too difficult for us to muster the moral and physical strength>needed to defend ourselves. Remember the refrain, primarily in Europe
during the Cold War, "better Red than dead?"

Am I painting a too grim a picture? I don't think so. Wake up, America!
This war is not only taking place in Iraq. The struggle is for the
future of the world. Our enemies intend to conquer us, and they say so
openly. The time to resist is now.


2)The Relationship between the Taliban and Pakistan's Domestic Stability
By Kamran Bokhari

While returning from East Asia on Feb. 26, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney made a surprise stopover in Islamabad, where he met with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The same day, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett also met with Musharraf, urging him to control the Taliban traffic along the Afghan-Pakistani border. Meanwhile, reports surfaced that U.S. President George W. Bush has sent a strong message to Musharraf, warning him that the Democratic-controlled Congress could cut aid to Pakistan unless Islamabad aggressively cracks down on jihadist activity in the country.

Beckett's was the latest in a long series of calls from senior U.S. officials and those representing Washington's NATO allies for the Musharraf government to do more in the fight against jihadists. Given that the war in Iraq has gone badly for the United States, the Bush administration is under great pressure domestically to show progress in Afghanistan (and by extension Pakistan). Similarly, their military involvement in Afghanistan is a major domestic issue for many European states.

Though political concerns at home are contributing to the U.S./Western pressure on Islamabad to get tougher on the jihadist problem, Pakistan's inability to oblige its Western allies is also a function of its own domestic political concerns. There also is a certain level of unwillingness on Islamabad's part because its interest in maintaining relations with Washington goes beyond having status as an ally in the war on terrorism. The United States and the Europeans understand the concerns of the Pakistanis and do not want to rock the Musharrafian boat, especially when the country is headed into presidential and parliamentary elections beginning as early as September.

That said, the West is not willing to continue with business as usual, which has led to the strengthening of the jihadist forces in Afghanistan and allowed al Qaeda to continue its global operations -- albeit at a reduced pace. From viewpoint of the United States and its NATO allies, the Pakistanis could be doing a lot more without triggering political instability on the home front.

The Pakistanis, on the other hand, say they are fed up with being asked to do more, arguing that using force alone is undermining their own domestic security -- which could indeed start churning up a tide of political instability. Musharraf is caught between the external pressure to assume a more robust attitude with regards to counterterrorism, and dealing with terrorism from within.

On both counts, Islamabad has a point. Following the U.S. airstrike on a madrassa in the northern part of the tribal belt in late October 2006, jihadists have unleashed an unprecedented wave of suicide attacks across the country against government and Western targets. Other than a few bombings against Western targets and assassination attempts against Musharraf, jihadists had not attacked inside Pakistan. In fact, until this recent wave of suicide attacks, jihadists in Pakistan were using the country as a launchpad for attacks against third parties.

This nascent jihadist insurgency does not have widespread support within the country and, given the militants' limited capabilities, is a problem Pakistani security forces can handle. The real obstacles to Musharraf's ability to wage a successful crackdown have to do with domestic political stability in light of the coming elections.

At present, Musharraf's domestic position is secure, in that no political force (party or even a coalition of parties) exists that can remove him from office through mass unrest. The fact that the political structure that emerged from the 2002 elections is managing to reach the end of its term clearly underscores his ability to maintain power. This, to a great degree, is the result of Musharraf being a military ruler.

Despite the military-dominated political order, however, the current civil-military government is not completely exempt from public accountability, especially if it expects to garner votes. On the contrary, the civilian setup that Musharraf is relying on to sustain his hold on power and to keep his political opponents at bay is a complex system crafted with great difficulty. Musharraf has kept this system afloat by forging alliances and creating and sustaining divisions among the opposition parties.

Both the president and the parliamentary component of his regime will have to pass the test of elections. Musharraf has told Stratfor he wants to remain president for another five years to reach the goals he has outlined for himself. For this he needs to have the current ruling coalition led by the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), at a bare minimum, retain its majority in the parliament and its current standing in the provincial legislatures. Accomplishing this task could guarantee his re-election as president.

But Musharraf is uncertain whether the next round of parliamentary elections -- set for January 2008 -- will produce the desired results, which is why he has moved to hold the presidential election in September. This way he can be certain of his own re-election as president in the event that his allies are not able to retain their majority in the federal and provincial legislatures.

Musharraf's opponents, however, are up in arms over his bid to seek a second term from the same electoral college. So the question is, can the opposition pull together the much-discussed grand alliance to force Musharraf's hand? Here is where terrorism and counterterrorism play a pivotal role in shaping events. Attacks in the country, along with the government's counterterrorism efforts, can create a dynamic that his opponents can exploit to generate public unrest. Certain forces already are taking advantage of the suicide attacks as an opportunity to target rival political forces in the hope of stirring political unrest ahead of the elections.

The purpose of the jihadist suicide bombing campaign is to create enough political problems for the Musharraf government to force Islamabad's attention away from counterterrorism operations. The situation in Afghanistan and the threat from the wider jihadist movement, however, has Musharraf under pressure to stay focused on counterterrorism. Thus, he needs to be able to figure out a way to satisfy international demands with regards to counterterrorism and keep his opponents from undercutting stability.

While Musharraf is reluctant to take on the risks associated with going after the Afghan Taliban, he is also deeply worried about the Talibanization of certain parts of his own country. In particular, the jihadists' influence is growing in the Pashtun-dominated areas in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and northwestern Balochistan.

Musharraf also wants to be able to roll back the power of the six-party Islamist political coalition, Mutahiddah Majlis-i-Amal (MMA). The MMA not only controls the NWFP government and is part of the coalition government with the pro-Musharraf PML in Balochistan, but also is the largest opposition bloc in the national parliament. The Islamists, who historically were divided and never gained more than a handful of seats in any previous election, contested the 2002 elections on a single platform and exploited the anti-American sentiment among the Pashtuns and others in the country in the wake of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001.

Another key reason behind the MMA's extraordinary showing at the polls was the fact that the mainstream opposition parties -- the Pakistani People's Party-Parliamentarians (PPP-P) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) -- were marginalized because of certain electoral and constitutional engineering aimed at preventing the two groups from making significant gains in the elections. Furthermore, the Musharraf government engineered a significant number of post-election defections of parliament members from the PPP-P. The PPP-P emerged as the largest opposition party in parliament in the last elections. The defections, however, decreased the number of seats it controlled -- and the MMA, which was in third place, emerged as the largest opposition bloc.

Since the last elections, Musharraf has seen how the military's historical relationship with Islamist and jihadist forces has cost the country -- and not just in terms of external pressure. It also has allowed these forces to emerge as a threat on the domestic front. Though the jihadists have staged a few suicide bombings in response to counterterrorism operations by Pakistani and U.S. forces, the MMA can exploit this issue in the elections, potentially consolidating its hold in the Pashtun areas and even enhancing it.

This would explain why Musharraf sees the coming parliamentary elections as a decisive battle between the forces of extremism and moderation. Though Musharraf might have clearly identified the battle line, he faces problems in gathering the forces of moderation to defeat the radicals.

The quandary has to do with the fact that two critical moderate political forces -- the PPP-P and the PML-N -- are not ready to do business with him. These two parties, which together form the secular opposition bloc called the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD), are not willing to accept a president in military uniform.

That he is the president as well as the military chief is not only the source of Musharraf's power; it is also the biggest sore point with regard to his future as leader of the country. Musharraf realizes that at some point he needs to step down as chief of the army staff. But from his point of view, how does he do so without incurring a loss of sovereignty? One way to do this, perhaps, is to change the political system from a parliamentary to a presidential one.

Considering that the constitution says the country should have a parliamentary form of government, he needs to be able to balance the powers of the parliament with those of the presidency. This can be done by amending the constitution in keeping with a negotiated power-sharing mechanism. This way Musharraf could retain control over power by serving as a balance between the military establishment and the civilians. But for this to materialize, he and his allies must get over the hurdle of the twin elections. In this respect, there are two possible outcomes.

1. Musharraf is able to get re-elected in September without any backlash from the public, meaning he is able to keep not just the ARD and MMA apart, but also to sustain internal divisions within the two alliances. Additionally, his civilian allies at a bare minimum retain more or less the same number of seats in the incumbent legislatures. Given the divided state of the Pakistani electorate, achieving this objective is not impossible.

2. Should an outcry occur over vote-rigging -- one big enough for the opposition to exploit -- then Musharraf would be in trouble, both and home and abroad. The Bush administration, for instance, would not want to come out in support of him in the wake of mass cries of fraud. In such a situation, things could spiral out of hand and he could be forced to step down. In the event of major public protests, even his generals could be forced to call on him to step down or strike a compromise with the opposition.

Musharraf would want to avoid at all costs the latter outcome, which means his government cannot afford to allow the opposition to exploit the issue of electoral fraud. This is why it is even more important that he not engage in actions that will make it even more difficult for him and his allies to get re-elected.

This complex domestic political situation raises the question of whether the United States and its allies can delay their demand for Islamabad to take more action until after the electoral storm for Musharraf has passed. In many ways it is a timing issue because NATO is looking at the coming spring offensive from the Taliban and needs Pakistani cooperation to act. Musharraf and Washington, therefore, likely will work out a formula whereby the jihadists can be dealt with without creating problems for Musharraf in the elections. This is because, from Washington's point of view, long-term success in the war against the jihadists depends on political continuity in Islamabad.