From Online Journal, August 13, 2004

Our enemies never stop thinking of new ways to harm our country and our people and neither do we,' said the United States president [sic] last week, totally unaware of his audience's muffled titter in response.

This latest in a long series of amusing Bushisms smacks of reality for more and more Americans railing at the growing McCarthy type ambience within the country fuelled by the politics of fear.

Indeed, many Americans are still reeling from the specific terror alerts concerning financial targets in New York, Newark and Washington gravely enunciated by Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge, which turned out to be pre-9/11.

Once the cat was out of the bag, his claims that up-to-the-minute—and, naturally, classified—intelligence added credence to the emergency rang hollow to mushrooming sceptical ears. They couldn't help but notice the timing of the warnings, believing they were hyped to tamp down on the post-Democrat Convention John Kerry bounce.

'Do you think US President [sic] George W. Bush is using the terror alert system for political reasons?' was the question asked by CNN of its online readership with the result 73 per cent of those polled answered: 'Yes'.

Britain, also designated a terrorist target in the same intelligence batch, reacted differently to the so-called crises and was criticised by the Bush cabal for its laissez-faire attitude. In response, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, indicated the US overreaction to old intelligence risked exposing politicians to ridicule, adding he was unwilling to 'feed the news frenzy' during a slow summer and describing calls for him to open-up as 'arrant nonsense'.

There are further strains between Britain and the US over Washington's outing of the Pakistani computer engineer, whose computer spewed out plans, blueprints and reports on Citigroup, the Prudential, the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan allegedly has links to al Qaida but quickly put his ideological fervour on the back burner when arrested, preferring instead to co-operate with Pakistani and US authorities by sending out emails to his fellow extremists around the world.

Khan was no doubt either a prize intelligence catch or a double agent facilitating 'catch a terrorist' sting operations, but when push came to shove and America's jobs data was inconveniently in the doldrums, his name was revealed by the Bush administration.

Not Amused

Not only was Blunkett incensed by this faux pas but the Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat was not amused either. He complained that might Khan have stayed under wraps, he could have unearthed the main man: Osama bin Laden himself.

Security expert Paul Beaver told Reuters: 'If it's true that the Americans have unintentionally revealed the identity of another nation's intelligence agent, who appears to be working for the good of all of us, that is not only a fundamental intelligence flaw. It's also a monumental foreign relations blunder.'

The premature outing of Khan prompted Britain to hastily round up 13 British terrorist suspects of Asian origin, fingered by the computer whiz, before enough evidence against them was to hand. Several have already been released.

One of the young men, Esa Al Hindi—said to be Khan's relative—is wanted by the US. However, MI5 has warned that American media coverage of the British arrests could hamper extradition proceedings in that they could preclude Al Hindi from receiving a fair trial.

The arrest in the Pakistani province of Punjab of Ahmad Khalfan Ghailani, wanted for the Kenya embassy bombings, is also said to be the result of Khan's efforts.

The Asia Times Online says Pakistan has handed as many as 350 al Qaida operatives to the US and quotes 'security experts close to the corridors of power in Pakistan' as inferring more dramatic—and timely—arrests can be expected as the US elections draw near.

There is talk of a Faustian bargain having been struck between the US and Pakistan in the 'war on terror'.

Either the Pakistanis agree to regularly hand over al Qaida members or send troops to join the coalition in Iraq, in return for continued US backing. The latter isn't really an option for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as that would, no doubt, incite an extremist backlash in his own country where the Americans are hardly flavour of the month.

A poster on the Guardian talk board has an amusing take on the situation, writing as though he was a member of Pakistani intelligence talking with the Americans: 'Hello, Karachi Dial-a-Prisoner, may I take your order please? Three Afghan mujahadeen, a Pakistani mullah . . . and . . . oh, sorry, sir, we are all out of mid-level al Qaida fundraisers . . .'

Joking aside, there is a danger that if the Bush administration cries wolf too often, a genuine terror alert will not be taken seriously.

There is much speculation that al Qaida would like nothing better than to launch a spectacular attack on the US just before the election so as to influence its outcome, as in Spain.

Flawed Strategy

It would seem to me a flawed strategy on the terrorists' part.

Jose Maria Aznar was ousted because his government did not have the backing of the Spanish people over Iraq and initially attempted to blame ETA for the Madrid station bombings.

On the other hand, if the US were to be attacked again, the American people would rally around their commander-in-chief and self-styled 'War President'. Kerry would have little choice but to return his purple hearts to their box, his merry band of Vietnam vets to whence they came and Teresa to one of her mansions.

Call them 'evil', call them 'barbaric', call them what you will but there is one thing al Qaida masterminds aren't, and that is stupid.

Would they strike America knowing that their actions supported the Bush campaign? Doubtful . . . unless, of course, they believe Bush and the neocons are the greatest recruitment tools they've got. Hmm!



--Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.



» Find more of the online edition.