A New Hub for Terrorism?

[Meshuga]

A Bangali friend of mine, who is pretty involved in the politics over there, is usually frustrated that our state department supports the current government in Bangladesh which has the support of fundamentalist Muslims, just for the sake of our (USA) interests.

Now, Bangladesh, a country of majority Muslims that has a secular governent, may have problems in the future because of the rise of fundamentalism.

Ironically, says my friend, this current Bangali government (who has support from our State Department) has ties to Al-Qaeda.

An interesting Washington Post opinion piece follows below:


------

A New Hub for Terrorism?
In Bangladesh, an Islamic Movement With Al-Qaeda Ties Is on the Rise


By Selig S. Harrison
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A15

While the United States dithers, a growing Islamic fundamentalist movement linked to al-Qaeda and Pakistani intelligence agencies is steadily converting the strategically located nation of Bangladesh into a new regional hub for terrorist operations that reach into India and Southeast Asia.

With 147 million people, largely Muslim Bangladesh has substantial Hindu and Christian minorities and is nominally a secular democracy. But the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) struck a Faustian bargain with the fundamentalist party Jamaat-e-Islami five years ago in order to win power.

In return for the votes in Parliament needed to form a coalition government, Prime Minister Khaleda Zia has looked the other way as the Jamaat has systematically filled sensitive civil service, police, intelligence and military posts with its sympathizers, who have in turn looked the other way as Jamaat-sponsored guerrilla squads patterned after the Taliban have operated with increasing impunity in many rural and urban areas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101118.html

[Igel]

1. Far too many fellow travellers.

You don't have to do anything but watch.

The term is Soviet, from the days of "voennyi komunizm" 'militant communism' (although that sounds odd). Many writers, politicians, businessmen, all found that in the short term Lenin and his policies weren't bad. They could live with them. The ones that couldn't left, and weren't held in high esteem.

It gave Lenin and the CPSU time to establish control, to gain an economy that was strong enough. Then they started clamping down, first under Lenin, but much more so under Stalin. Took 15 years, and then most of the fellow travellers were either so compromised as to have no moral standing, or in prison.

But until then, it was simply not their problem. And, in the short term, beneficial.

[ovidsen]

2. No long term strategy

Yes, I'm being redundant, since by defintion strategy IS long term.

But this obliviousness to the long term consequences of short term alliances is the hallmark of GOP administrations since Reagan (remember Iran-contra?). The Iraq quagmire is also the result of a mindset that defines long term planning as "what we're going to do this afternoon".

What idiots.

[Meshuga]

3. Not to mention Saddam

who was an ally up to 1990.