The “righteous” war on terror

The 9/11 commission had released a comprehensive report on it’s investigations and viewpoints. One particular excerpt intrigued me:

In the summer before the embassy bombings, the State Department had been heavily focused on rising tensions between India and Pakistan and did not aggressively challenge Pakistan on Afghanistan and Bin Ladin. But State Department counterterrorism officials wanted a stronger position; the department’s acting counterterrorism coordinator advised Secretary Albright to designate Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism, noting that despite high-level Pakistani assurances, the country’s military intelligence service continued “activities in support of international terrorism” by supporting attacks on civilian targets in Kashmir.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

And why was this recommendation rejected by Albright?

She told us that, in general, putting the Pakistanis on the terrorist list would eliminate any influence the United States had over them.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Americans claim to be the world police; to be fighting this war on “global terrorism”. I however failed to realize that this “global terrorism” meant only those that would affect American soil. You can’t blame the American public. When it comes to international issues, their media is dorkier than the Indian counterpart. For example: ABC news showed the tag “War on Terror” while covering the Iraq war.

In the same context, I think it would be in the interest of Pakistan to slow down on the crack down on terror infrastructure, as that would ensure continued patronage of Americans. Strange — isn’t it?