TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | Afghanistan

Secretary Gates: ‘No one involved in the process has referred to the troops going in as ‘a surge.’

By on 27 February 2009
Photobucket

Just finished a media call with Defense Secretary Gates. He’s sure no Donald Rumsfeld. But then again President Obama welcomes information and as much transparency as possible, especially following his address from Camp Lejeune.

I had to chuckle at the correspondent from Fox News Radio, who asked a particularly obtuse question straight out of Sean Hannity’s playbook.

The New York Daily News reporter got slapped down a bit when he referred to the limited increase of troops in Afghanistan as a “surge.”

The AP reporter picked up on the news that’s been circulating about the debate about which withdrawal plan, 16, 19 or 23 months, was pushed by the generals.

As a final thought I took away that many of the questions were predicated on the notion that Gates has a crystal ball. The Secretary quickly disabused everyone of such a notion.

What follows are notes, typing as fast as I could so you could get a sense of the dynamics, from the call with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, beginning with what is needed in the short-term in Iraq:

“Maximum force presence” for Odierno during that sensitive period. The extra two months important for logistics (meaning from 16 to 18 month withdrawal plan).

REUTERS: About forces remaining after 2011.

GATES: It’s hypothetical. Have to wait and see. We should be, my own view, is that we should be prepared to have a modest size for training and intelligence beyond that, but again it’s hypothetical. No request has been made and no evidence it will be made

CBS: Difference between “combat and non-combat troops.”

GATES: All of the combat units will be out of Iraq by Aug. 2010. The rest will be “combat capable,” but “the units will be gone” and “more importantly the miss ion.. will be completely different.”

ABC: How flexible is this plan, how nimble?

GATES: We set a date because Obama said he would. That’s important to delineate between one mission and another; when one ends and another ends. It’s important for our troops and the Iraqis. As for flexibility, the President has made it clear that he’s the commander in chief and he will make those decisions, but that “we will meet these timelines.”

NY DAILY NEWS: Re: refocusing on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; will the forces getting larger than 55,000?

GATES: “First, no one involved in the process has referred to the troops going in as “a surge.” Everything will be determined by the review going on. There won’t be a sense about the size or duration until he’s see the review.

THE NEWS HOUR: 35,000 – 50,000 troops to remain in Iraq; Marines in Afghanistan Obama spoke to today, what will be their mission?

GATES: Deployed principally in the south to combat the Taliban and population security. Troops in Iraq question better addressed to Odierno; but protection for reconstruction and civilian teams. New units or “remissioned” units already there remains to be seen.

FOX NEWS RADIO: If Iraq takes a turn for the worse has Obama mentioned whether troops will go back in?

GATES: That’s pretty hypothetical. The decision Obama has made took into account these things. One reason Odierno wanted to maintain as many forces as possible is because of all the contingencies. The Iraqis will have to step up themselves. They did that during the last elections. Nobody is talking about sending more troops back in there.

LA TIMES: You talked about draw down and the Iraqi elections; how many units out this year, and air asset movements, will they move to Afghan?

GATES: “The two theaters are clearly separate.” I don’t know the answer to that question. “Most of what we’ve been adding in Afghanistan are new assets.” We’ll wait and see once we begin from Iraq. The general approach, there will be a draw down, but we have to get specific recommendations from Odierno.

AP: What happened to the 23 month option?

GATES: Odierno, Petraeus, the Chiefs, then we talked separately, 16, 19 and 23 months dated from the inauguration, with all of them having risks. Progress, sustaining progress, and tje additional need for Afghanistan. Gen. Odierno & Petraeus are comfortable with what Obama decided, Gates and the Chiefs as well

WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT: Obama talked about non-sectarian aspect and withdrawing troops from Iraq…

GATES: We’ve been pleased with the progress of the Iraq forces being non-sectarian, as witnessed recently in Basra. The army is developing along these lines. If we saw concerns like that we could bring attention to the Iraqi leadership. Confident it can be handled.

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

Obama’s Gamble

By on 26 February 2009

–updated–

Photobucket

Here comes the budget. It’s staggering. Everyone is opining. Few understand it, including on Capitol Hill. Most Americans are somewhere between clueless and furious with no one giving them anything they can bank on. My guides continue to be Paul Krugman, Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer.

Meanwhile, where is Tim Geithner?

The broad outline below, with health care getting a down payment, compliments of the Bush tax cut expiration:

President Obama will release a proposed budget today that sets aside up to $250 billion dollars to add to the existing bank bailout, which would bring the 2009 budget deficit to $1.75 trillion dollars, White House officials said. Overall, the massive spending plan is built on the assumption that lawmakers can resolve some hugely contentious issues — and it relies on a few well-worn budget tricks.

The request Obama will deliver to Congress today proposes to provide what administration officials are calling a “down payment” on a major expansion of health care coverage for the uninsured. It identifies $634 billion in tax increases and spending cuts to cover the cost of part of the program, but does not say how the administration hopes to raise the rest of the money — hundreds of billions of dollars more. “TBD” has been penciled into categories for cost savings and benefit reductions.

Obama’s budget also would make permanent a tax cut for the middle class enacted in the recent stimulus package. [...]

On “Morning Joe,” Patrick Buchanan has already announced Obama’s demise. Maria Bartiromo was apoplectic about the silence on the banking system.

Again, where is Tim Geithner?

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

SOFA for the ‘Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’?

By on 24 February 2009

–updated–

Who said Afghanistan can’t get more backwards (or maybe this is a good thing)? Pakistan is proving it can with the new peace deal implementing Sharia in the Swat region. Fareed Zakaria spoke with Imran Khan, famous cricket player turned Pakistani politician, on GPS this past Sunday. Khan hailed the “peace deal” as the only choice, which is frightening considering the wide ramifications of such moral cowardice. Things are going from bad to more extreme in the Af-Pak region just as Obama and Secretary Clinton gear up.

Laura Rozen has the document of the day, which has been confirmed as real, though certainly not an official effort agreed upon by the international community. Still, the draft suggests a start of some sort of status of forces agreement for Afghanistan, though heavier on message than legalities.

This is one portion of the “introduction” found in the pdf:

Reaffirming the ultimate aim of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan taking full responsibility for its own security by achieving a strong and visible international commitment through the deployment of international military forces through support for the development of effective national security and defense institutions;

In another section, the draft says:

4. Where it is necessary to conduct search and inspections of localities and residential areas, including house searches and detention operations, only Afghan National Security Forces will be employed.

“Detention operations” no doubt has something to do with Bagram, known as the “other Guantanamo,” which has been in the news lately since reports surfaced of the Obama administration stating they will maintain Bush-Cheney policies on the prisoner rights issues of detainees at Bagram.

This brought about a cry from many progressives, but the truth is that the issue is far from settled, more likely something that needs further analysis, especially with Obama’s eyes squarely on the economic collapse. At least that’s my take at this point.

The Obama administration has told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team.

… “Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position,” wrote Michael F. Hertz, acting assistant attorney general.

[...]Jack Balkin, a Yale Law School professor, said it was too early to tell what the Obama administration would end up doing with the detainees at Bagram. He said some observers believed that the Obama team would end up making a major change in policy but simply needed more time to come up with it, while others believed that the administration had decided “to err on the side of doing things more like the Bush administration did, as opposed to really rethinking and reorienting everything” about the detention policies it inherited because it had too many other problems to deal with. …

We’ll see if the document Rozen posts today actually gets legs internationally. But the news of sharia in the Swat region to achieve peace foreshadows seriously tough slogging ahead. It would be depressing but things in that area of the world can change on a whim. That’s the challenge and Richard Holbrooke’s reality, because this is what Bush-Cheney dumped in Obama-Biden’s lap.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Into the Frying Pan

By on 18 February 2009

Following fast on the heels of President Obama signing the stimulus bill on Tuesday came the news that he “would send an additional 17,000 American troops to Afghanistan this spring and summer, putting his stamp firmly on a war that he has long complained is going in the wrong direction.”

The new order from the Obama administration increses the troop level in Afghanistan by nearly 50% and White House officials said, “[a] further decision on sending more troops will come after the administration completes a broader review of Afghanistan policy.”

Mr. Obama said in a written statement that the increase was “necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires.”

At least for now, Mr. Obama’s decision gives American commanders in Afghanistan most but not all of the troops they had asked for. But the decision also carries political risk for a president who will be sending more troops to Afghanistan before he has begun to fulfill a promised rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Many experts worry that Afghanistan presents an even more formidable challenge for the United States than Iraq does, particularly with neighboring Pakistan providing sanctuary for insurgents of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The announcement, which was expected, drew heat from anti-war groups before it was even made. Knowing he was stepping into the frying pan, Obama also noted in his statement that “the fact that we are going to responsibly draw down our forces in Iraq allows us the flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan.”

AP News reported yesterday that the U.N. said in a new report that “the number of Afghan civilians killed in armed conflict surged to a record 2,118 people last year as the Afghan war turned increasingly bloody.” 

This is now Obama’s war on terror, compliments of BushCo. The question for many of us to President Obama is simply, “when will it end?” There really is no doubt things have heated up there and it’s the war we should have been fighting, but “when will it end?” And how many more American lives will be lost?

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

You Know Those People You Pass on the Road Changing a Tire on their Trailer?

By on 18 February 2009

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn105/TaylorMarsh/tire.jpg Sometimes a rainbow is just a rainbow.

Case in point, we were driving along after coming through a particularly nasty bit of highway when we looked up to see a gorgeous full rainbow complete with a shadow of a second one. A couple of minutes later my husband uttered an expletive, just moments after I sensed what had just happened. A blow out on one of our brand new trailer tires (though the picture is not our actual tire, by the way).  Needless to say our rainbow euphoria evaporated on the spot.

Of all the road trips I’ve taken, as well as those my husband and I have now taken together, those poor souls you see on the side of the road changing a trailer tire with their stuff unloaded nearby was now very close to my every thought, as we were now one of them. That I never imagined that would be me some day is not a minor point.

Stuff happens on the road.

No sooner had we changed the tire than we hit a torrential downpour. … .. It soon turned into serious snowfall (that lasted into the night), so we cut our driving short and hunkered down in a hotel room smaller than a New York City studio apartment bathroom. We were too tired to care. Well, that’s not entirely true, especially once the train started going by hourly. A fitting end to a day from hell. Thank the gods for alcohol.

Blue skies and freezing temps greeted us the next day, but that was nothing compared to the mountain passes, which were icy and dangerous. I slid through half of the drive, as my husband followed in his truck.  The sunrise morning was a nerve racking focus driven experience through beautiful elk country at freezing temperatures, with nearly unpassable roadways. Even my windshield wipers and fluid were frozen until almost midday. But the glorious beauty of the drive made any tension disappear.

Once the day unfolded we had clear sailing, with a long way still to go.

Meanwhile, back in the world of politics a lot was happening.

All the while I listened to the soundtrack of “The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly,” a fitting backdrop to red clay bluffs flying past.

Lordy how I love driving through the American west. (I’ve done it enough times.)

President Obama’s first decision about Afghanistan seemed miles away.

President Obama said Tuesday that he would send an additional 17,000 American troops to Afghanistan this spring and summer, putting his stamp firmly on a war that he has long complained is going in the wrong direction.

The order will add nearly 50 percent to the 36,000 American troops already there.

I support a limited addition of troops wholeheartedly, as I’ve stated many times before. VoteVets issued a statement on it, welcoming the move as well. Sen. Feingold expressed the need for more than just troops on Afghanistan, because a strategy is needed beyond the military, something on which most can agree, though you wouldn’t know it by the rhetoric of some.

I’ll check in from the road again before I finally make it to Washington if I possibly can. Let’s hope it’s clear sailing from here.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Brazen Attack in Kabul

By on 12 February 2009
afghanistan

For anyone who thinks security in Afghanistan isn’t becoming a real strategic imperative, I offer the story that got drowned out yesterday by all things stimulus. Happening the day before Mr. Holbrooke arrives sends a chilling message. The group took over government buildings in Kabul as the carnage began. Karzai has clearly lost his clout and his grip.

Afterward, security forces carried the mangled bodies of the attackers out of the building and, in a sign of deep disrespect, dumped the bodies unceremoniously on the concrete forecourt. All eight attackers at the three sites were killed in addition to their 20 victims, the Interior Ministry said.

[...]Across the city, many streets were empty as residents were too scared to go outside. The attacks clearly unnerved Afghan officials. “The enemy still has the capability to bring this amount of weapons and explosives inside the city of Kabul and find their way to government institutions,” said Hanif Atmar, the interior minister. He promised new and strict security measures that would be “uncomfortable” for residents, but necessary. Many parts of the capital are already sectioned off for security, and foreign embassies sit behind layers of checkpoints and blast walls.

… The most confidence-shaking attack, at the Justice Ministry, began about 10 a.m., when five Taliban fighters took over three of the building’s four floors. The ministry is in the heart of the capital, a few hundred yards from the presidential palace. [...]

Clearly, the Taliban’s control over Afghanistan is expansive, with Obama’s review of our Afghanistan policy likely to be put in overdrive.

Abu Muqawama asks the sobering question (not unusual): Does this mean Karzai is no longer even the mayor of Kabul? Yeah, think about that one for a minute.

An insurgency that can take over government buildings in broad daylight with the greatest of ease proves security has cratered, not that we weren’t aware things were bad.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Dick Morris Still Hunting Hillary

By on 11 February 2009

Clinton talking about Iran in the video. Clinton on Afghanistan, with someone finally mentioning the Quetta shura in southern Afghanistan, looking beyond FATA as we delve into solving the security issues in the Afpak region.

“We’ve made progress going into the tribal areas and North-West Frontier Province against Al Qaeda, but we have not had a counterpart war against the Quetta shura,” said a senior Obama administration official, using the term for the Taliban’s ruling council. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has said the Obama administration will adopt a tough love approach to Pakistan: threatening to cut off military aid to Islamabad unless it carries out a crackdown on militants operating throughout the country.

“Pakistan will act against any individuals involved with Al Qaeda or the Taliban about whom we have actionable intelligence,” Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, said in an interview. “The problem is we do not always get actionable intelligence in Quetta in particular. It’s a very messy area.”

Only in this small man’s little mind would Secretary Clinton’s role in the Obama administration be seen as “incredible, shrinking,” and “dissolving under her feet.” The famous toe sucker of D.C. runs down a list of prominent Obama aides somehow coming to the conclusion that because Clinton isn’t in charge of everything she’s less. It’s a feat of rationalizing to make this head Hillary hater feel better about losing his own power base, which now consists of Sean Hannity’s world. After laying out all of Obama’s advisers and their roles, including Biden’s role in Obama’s foreign policy team, Morris makes an astounding assessment:

So where does all this leave Secretary of State Clinton?

While sympathy for Mrs. Clinton is outside the normal fare of these columns, one cannot help but feel that she is surrounded by people who are, at best, strangers and, at worst, enemies. The competition that has historically occupied secretaries of State and national security advisers seems poised to ratchet up to a new level in the current administration.

Therein lies Morris’ real motive. To begin the competition and in-fighting storyline so as to undermine any connection Hillary has with Obama, as well as their relationship, so that the usual suspects can get busy on the gossip angle.

I guess Morris is oblivious to the fact that Holbrooke, Obama’s representative to the Afpak region, which is a bit larger role than simply an “envoy,” was a confirmed Clintonista until Hillary and Barack made full peace, someone who also will report to President Obama through Clinton. This appointment is no small thing, which Clinton explains in this interview.

Morris also forgets that Hillary intends to give State a lot more teeth, taking back what Rummy felt was military work. His ignorance at Clinton’s job mandate comes from his inner little boy who cannot fathom the adult work of diplomacy.

The fact is that Clinton’s knowledge base is beyond the likes of Morris and others of his ilk. She’s in a league of her own talking substance and issues, while the Morrises of the world talk trash.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Kerry: A Race Against Time in Afghanistan

By on 10 February 2009

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, John Kerry has a must read OP/ED in today’s WaPo on Afghanistan. Taylor wrote here yesterday about some of the latest news on Afghanistan.  

Kerry has been passionately speaking out on Afghanistan for years now. In a speech in 2006, he “argued that more troops were needed” there and he still believes that.

In his OP/ED today, Kerry says, “We must renew our original mission — and President Obama has rightly pledged to recommit to Afghanistan as the center of our global counterinsurgency campaign, beginning with the deployment of as many as 30,000 additional troops.”

[...] But troops alone will not bring victory. Our military commitment must be matched with realistic goals, beginning with a comprehensive new bottom-up strategy acknowledging Afghanistan’s history of decentralized governance and recognizing the capabilities of our NATO and Afghan allies.

Last year was the deadliest since we arrived in Afghanistan in 2001. A senior U.S. commander warned recently that “it’s going to get worse before it gets better.”

It is “equally important,” Kerry notes that we ”execute this commitment without raising the stakes and turning Afghanistan once again into a magnet for the world’s jihadists.”

Our NATO allies have to shoulder a bigger burden, and we should continue to seek more combat troops with fewer restrictions. Jawboning reluctant allies has its limits; we will need to persuade countries unwilling to take on expanded combat roles to contribute more toward other aspects of the mission, including development and police training.

Afghanistan is not Iraq, and we should not expect the same results from a troop increase as occurred in Iraq.

Go read the entire OP/ED. Kerry, in my opinion has always been ahead of the curve on the issue of Afghanistan. I am admittedly biased when it comes to Kerry’s opinions on the issues, having worked for his campaign in ’04, but I think readers here will agree Kerry is right on this:

We went to Afghanistan to deny sanctuary to al-Qaeda and to replace the Taliban rulers who harbored it with a legitimate government strong enough to avoid destabilizing a vital and volatile region. Our goal hasn’t changed. Achieving it requires a more robust commitment of coalition troops and reconstruction aid. It is not too late to turn the tide, but only a comprehensive strategy, sufficient resources and bipartisan resolve will lead to success in Afghanistan.

In related news, the White House announced today that ”a Middle East expert will conduct an interagency review of Afghanistan and Pakistan policy for the Obama administration.” Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer will lead the review and it is expected to be completed “before the NATO summit in early April.”

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

Holbrooke: Afghanistan ‘Much Tougher’ than Iraq

By on 09 February 2009

Several stories today focus on Afghanistan, with differing offerings all coming to the same conclusion. President Obama does not have grandiose dreams for the outcome in Afghanistan, where empires go to die, as the saying goes, with everyone understanding that security is plummeting in that country. With a new plan forward coming from all sides soon.

From the Guardian:

The Obama team and Nato leaders are due to finalise a “comprehensive” review of the Afghan strategy by April when the US president arrives in Europe for a Nato summit in France and Germany.

“Barack Obama is a pragmatist. He knows we must deal with the world as it is,” said Jones. He added that there had been a “failure to harmonise” the various strands of the campaign in Afghanistan. The new policy would place greater emphasis on “going beyond military capacity” to dealing with good governance, judicial reform, a focus on the police, and the “war on drugs”.

As an aside, NSC adviser Jones is getting expanded turf and more power as expected from Obama through a directive, which was mentioned yesterday in the Post, an important read. In the piece Jones makes a point of saying that part of his job is making sure that Obama hears the minority view on issues, which didn’t happen during Bush-Cheney, while making sure the president also gets Jones’ view when needed.

John Hutton, the British defense secretary, may have been one of the only European voices calling for more action, but he got the attention of General Petraeus, who took it as “a terrific message,” according to the Guardian reporting. Hutton:

“This is not an aberration. This is the pattern of future conflicts. I do not believe we are properly preparing for it,” he said.

Nato should show a “wartime mentality” over the campaign in Afghanistan, but instead it possessed a “peacetime culture obsessed with process”, he added.

Secretary Gates and Jim Jones have both complained about NATO in Afghanistan. If the organization doesn’t find some way to address the reality of non state actors causing mayhem, NATO’s April confab will be depressing, the prognosis for Afghanistan grim.

From the Washington Post today:

“NATO’s future is on the line here,” Richard C. Holbrooke, the State Department’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told attendees at an international security conference here. “It’s going to be a long, difficult struggle. . . . In my view, it’s going to be much tougher than Iraq.”

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, said the war in Afghanistan “has deteriorated markedly in the past two years” and warned of a “downward spiral of security.”

Petraeus is also aware of the risks: “Afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires. “We cannot take that history lightly.”

Post reporting confirms the Guardian report on European involvement needing to increase, which offers a very small glimmer of hope for President Obama, even as Biden’s trip didn’t actually yield any new movement on the issue of NATO.

The debate over troops has led to a split within NATO. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO’s secretary general, told conference attendees on Saturday that European members of the alliance needed to do more of the “heavy lifting” in Afghanistan.

British Defense Secretary John Hutton openly disagreed with his German counterpart, saying the need for more combat troops was the highest priority in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, President Karzai remains part of the problem, someone who is seemingly unwilling to take responsibility for anything.

“Yes, we produce poppies. Yes, we are insecure because of that,” he said. “Are we a ‘narco-state,’ as we’ve been called the past few years? No, we are not.”

Ego meets denial.

State’s special envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke, summed up what we’re facing in a nutshell:

“I’ve never seen anything remotely resembling the mess we’ve inherited.” – Richard Holbrooke

But it’s ours now, regardless of what Bush-Cheney dumped in our laps, and President Obama cannot afford to have a failed state heavily dependent on narcotics trade next to nuclear Pakistan.

Oh, and speaking of Pakistan, two stories that are sobering in the extreme. One from Dawn, which is yet another tale of Pakistani army incompetence when juxtaposed with the Taliban. The second from the AP, which reports of receiving a gruesome video that appears to show the killing of a Polish engineer held hostage, the first since Daniel Pearl.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Coming to D.C. When Progressive Radio is Dead

By on 08 February 2009
Photobucket

Hard to see in the picture, but that’s a flock of geese. Given our bird fetish, what a welcome to the area. Flocks of geese overhead, in fields, just beautiful. It’s the first time my husband has seen this area of the country, so it was a welcome sight. We’ve been everywhere from D.C. to Virginia to Maryland, as I introduce him to our new home. The rest of February will be getting fully moved and settled in, but he loves the place. The weather has been spectacular, which helps.

Perusing the news, I couldn’t help but land on Bill Press’ piece today about radio in the D.C. area.

The commercial use of public airwaves is supposed to reflect the diversity of the local community, but that’s not how it works in Washington. On the AM dial, WMAL (630) features wall-to-wall conservative talk. So do stations WTNT (570) and WHFS (1580). For the past two years, OBAMA 1260 — even with a weak signal that cannot be heard in downtown Washington — was the exception. No longer. Starting tomorrow, our nation’s capital, where Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, and where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to one, will have no progressive voices on the air. …

Swell, huh? This has been my battle for so many years I can’t count. I’d heard rumblings, but… We’ll see what happens.

But the most important story for me is the news that’s been circulating that President Obama has finally decided that if we are to offer even a limited escalating of troops in Afghanistan we need a plan. Though the title of this article is misleading, this section nails the reality:

The president was concerned by a lack of strategy at his first meeting with Gates and the US joint chiefs of staff last month in “the tank”, the secure conference room in the Pentagon. He asked: “What’s the endgame?” and did not receive a convincing answer.

Larry Korb, a defence expert at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank, said: “Obama is exactly right. Before he agrees to send 30,000 troops, he wants to know what the mission and the endgame is.”

The only mission in my mind that’s worth it is to keep Afghanistan from becoming a failed state. But we still need an endgame, so this is obviously smart.

Another good sign was that Tom Ricks on “Meet the Press” finally put the dagger into the heart of this nonsense that Afghanistan could become “Obama’s Vietnam,” something that Juan Cole and Newsweek, among many others, have trumpeted. Cole and I got into a back and forth on it, because I found his assertion ridiculous. Ricks says it’s not Afghanistan that’s the real issue, but Pakistan. Bingo. If Obama considers any military action inside Pakistan, that’s the place that could end up sinking his administration. Now that Ricks has said that openly, maybe we can all come to grips that Pakistan is the 10,000 ton elephant in the room even when talking about Afghanistan. But if Obama is to be successful in this region, we cannot afford a failed state next to Pakistan. These countries can only be solved together. Again, I just don’t see how we make any headway without a limited troop increase in Afghanistan. No one has convinced me otherwise. I’m just hoping that Ricks’ comment will end the “Obama’s Vietnam” nonsense where Afghanistan is concerned. It’s just not helpful, plus it doesn’t apply.

Today we’re looking around some more, long day ahead, but I wanted to check in to say hello. Enjoy your Sunday.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Wake Up and Smell the Coffee

By on 06 February 2009

The new boss over at the RNC, Michael Steele has sent a message to staffers there, wake up and smell the coffee, you are all out of a job. That’s right, Steele has “requested the resignations of the entire RNC staff and signaled a dramatic turnover at the party organization.” I’m wondering if he can stop the “insurgency” before the Republicans all sink in their own mire.

We all know by now that Senate Republicans are “playing politics” while the “economy burns.” Keep an eye out for the latest jobs report due out today, Robert Reich warned on Thursday. The issue right now is “how to revive the economy” and at this point Reich notes, whether the Republicans like it or not, “government has to be the spender of last resort.”

The Republicans keep complaining about the stimulus bill, calling it a “spending bill.” Speaking to House Dems last night, President Obama had a few choice words for those whiners and complainers:

“First of all I found this deficit when I showed up. I found this national debt doubled wrapped in a big bow waiting for me when I stepped into the Oval Office,” he said tonight.

Continuing in a mocking tone of critics who complain ” “this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill,’ What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point. No, seriously, that’s the point. Now I got carried away,” he joked. But, “Here’s the point I’m making. This package is not going to be absolutely perfect, and you can nit and you can pick. That’s the game we all play here. What I’m saying is we can’t afford to play that game.”

President Obama had a spiffy ride to the meeting with House Dems yesterday. And speaking of Obama’s presidential jet, could ABC have been any stupider?  

Now that I have had a good strong cup of coffee, it’s time to note this bombshell in the morning news:

The Bush administration received assets that were worth $78 billion less than the amount it invested as part of the massive infusion of capital into the country’s banks, congressional investigators have found.

The investigators concluded that the Treasury under the federal bailout had invested $254 billion into companies but the preferred stock it got in return had a market value at the time of only $176 billion, or 69 percent of what the government paid, according to a congressional oversight panel report scheduled to be released today.
I am neither shocked or surprised, frankly that Henry M. Paulson Jr., might have made a promise he didn’t keep. Republican Senator Richard Shelby, who is a member of the Senate Banking Committee was shocked by the news about Treasury and flustered too:
“In other words, they misled the Congress, did they not?” said a visibly flustered Shelby.
Well, yes Senator, they did. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Read full story · Comments { 46 }

Afghanistan Supply Lines

By on 05 February 2009
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WmQTxwXrhA

If you want to see how badly the Pakistani army is doing up against the Taliban, an embedded Al Jazeera journalist chronicles the sad tale in this video. Bill Roggio’s take might interest you.

Our challenges in Afghanistan got bigger yesterday when a bridge in the Khyber pass was blown up. Then the trucks waiting to cross were set on fire.

The crucial supply line for US and Nato troops in Afghanistan was disrupted after an important bridge on the Peshawar-Torkham road was blown up on Tuesday.

Officials of the Khyber political administration said the 30-metre-long steel bridge was damaged by a blast and collapsed when a trailer loaded with cement was crossing it early in the morning. …

Attacking supply lines is an old trick. The New York Times has a great picture of the bridge.

Tom Ricks offers a classic on this one:

Looking at the blown bridge in the Khyber Pass, I remember reading somewhere that prime ambush sites along the Pakistani-Afghan border were passed along from generation to generation, much as Boston’s WASPs pass on vacation homes in New Hampshire.

I highly recommend the series of posts Ricks did on the Wanat battle last July. It will infuriate you, but that goes along with the territory when talking about Afghanistan.

Read full story · Comments { 49 }

Mission Afghanistan

By on 04 February 2009
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83dL7WciRFM

Two important additions to State are worth mentioning. One is Vali Nasr, who Laura Rozen reported will be a senior adviser to Holbrooke, who is off to London today (according to State), then the Munich Security conference. Former Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth, whom I interviewed on my radio show regarding Pakistan, may also get a spot in South Asia, Rozen reporting it might be U.S. ambassador to India. But what swirls in this mix is the winds of war in Afghanistan.

Yesterday, reality broke through:

The Pentagon’s top military officers are recommending to President Barack Obama that he shift U.S. strategy in Afghanistan — to focus on ensuring regional stability and eliminating Taliban and Al Qaida safe havens in Pakistan, rather than on achieving lasting democracy and a thriving Afghan economy, officials said.

Now, I’m for limited troop increase in Afghanistan, but only on a preventing failed state mission. How anyone can use Afghanistan and “lasting democracy” in the same sentence is a mystery to me. That’s been the problem with all the “Obama’s Vietnam” headlines, including Newsweek’s, which you can see in the video above. Obama campaigned on a counterinsurgency priority that stops the slide of teetering states like Afghanistan. Nothing is more in our strategic interest than keeping the Af-Pak region from dropping off a cliff. They go together.

Secretary Clinton had a dinner last night that focused on Afghanistan, with experts invited. CNAS described our challenges post Bush-Cheney, as well as our mission in Afghanistan:

No Terrorist Sanctuary and No Regional Meltdown

American neglect of Afghanistan in the wake of the Soviet defeat contributed to Al Qaeda entrenching there. The United States and Europe cannot again allow Al Qaeda or its associated movements to have the open support and protection of a state. The efforts of the past seven years have largely eliminated unfettered Al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan, and the country must not be allowed to return to the condition it was in on September 10, 2001. The problem, however, has become even more complex: collusion among Al Qaeda, the Taliban, narco-traffickers, and criminal gangs presents a real and growing threat to the region.

[...] The desired ends in Afghanistan—no terrorist sanctuary and no regional meltdown—and the way to cement those ends for the long term—helping the Afghans build a system of governance that can provide them security—require a comprehensive, integrated, and sequenced set of means. In a word, they need a strategy. A comprehensive strategy will be intrinsically regional, recognizing that even a perfect campaign in Afghanistan will fail if an unstable Pakistan continues to provide sanctuary to militants.

Wood at the briefing today at State:

QUESTION: And following on that, is the State Department doing its own policy review separate from the Petraeus review in CENTCOM, separate from the Lute review that came out of NSC, its own Afghan policy review?

MR. WOOD: Well, we obviously will take a look from the State Department standpoint at our overall contributions to overall U.S. policy in Afghanistan. But – and that will feed into a much larger review of our overall policy toward Afghanistan.

Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute is in charge of Afghanistan as “war czar.”

As the debate continues, someone needs to explain to me how we maintain an integrated Af-Pak strategy, first stabilizing Afghanistan, without a limited expansion of troops in that country. I’ve read a lot on the matter from those against any troop increase, but until someone can do it, preferably without raising the Vietnam flag, I won’t be convinced. The back and forth I had with Juan Cole is exhibit a. But I’m listening.

Read full story · Comments { 43 }

Gates: Civilian Casualties Doing ‘Enormous Harm’ in Afghanistan

By on 28 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS3_3AH_x98&eurl

Obama’s first move on Afghanistan is putting Karzai on notice. Let church bells ring.

Mr. Karzai is now seen as a potential impediment to American goals in Afghanistan, the officials said, because corruption has become rampant in his government, contributing to a flourishing drug trade and the resurgence of the Taliban.

[...] Shortly before taking office as vice president last week, Mr. Biden traveled to Afghanistan in his role as the departing chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He met with Mr. Karzai and warned him that the Obama administration would expect more of him than Mr. Bush did, administration officials said. He told Mr. Karzai that Mr. Obama would be discontinuing the video calls that Mr. Karzai enjoyed with Mr. Bush, said a senior official, who added that Mr. Obama expected Mr. Karzai to do more to crack down on corruption.

After his return from Afghanistan, Mr. Biden, who has had a contentious relationship with Mr. Karzai, described the situation there as “a real mess.”

If you have been following Secretary Gates on Afghanistan you already know that troops alone will not be enough to stabilize that country. After Bush letting it fall apart, it will take all our talents on deck, with the simple truth being we can’t just walk away given what we’re inheriting. Few know Afghanistan better than Gates. He saw first hand what happened during the Reagan administration, when CIA director Casey’s “kill Soviets” strategy was implemented. Gates understands the stark limitations on “success.” He also knows the primary objective is limited:

Mr. Gates added that the United States should focus on limited goals. “My own personal view is that our primary goal is to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorists and extremists to attack the United States and our allies, and whatever else we need to do flows from that objective,” he said.

President Obama and his team cannot undo the damage of neglect in Afghanistan after the Bush-Cheney years and shouldn’t try. Committed to keeping failed states from happening where terrorism can gain ground is job one.

The talk is that the policy review on Afghanistan is real on Obama’s part, with the final analysis yet to be made. But again, Obama’s inheriting a country in absolute chaos, so he can’t let it further unwind, with limited expansion of forces meant to “buy time” until an assessment can be made, something that has already been reported.

This will not mollify the people adamantly against more troops in Afghanistan, some of whom are running around with their rhetoric half cocked. Afghanistan isn’t in our strategic interest? Oh, but Pakistan is, though I’d still like to know how we treat them separately. But calling my friends at Vote Vets “war mongers”? Out of line.

On Afghanistan, count me on the side of Gates, for now.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Juan Cole Responds

By on 27 January 2009

Though I truly appreciate Juan Cole responding to my criticism of his Salon piece, he missed what I was talking about by a mile. He extrapolated that my quips about hyperbole and the gift to Hannity as meaning we shouldn’t give aid and comfort to the enemy. That I’m all about “party line.” Swing and a miss. The argument I have with Juan’s post entitled “Obama’s Vietnam?” is that it’s ridiculous to offer Vietnam laced criticism of a presidency one week old and one bombing out. Thus my tone, which was lost on my colleague, and is obviously a failure of this writer. Cole’s overblown argument about Obama foreign policy already hitting the Vietnam threshold inspired it. (I’ve obviously got to work on communicating my tongue and cheek tactics, because they were missed on my Pakistan piece by some readers of Cole, not quite getting my take.)

It seems to me that “Obama’s Vietnam?”, even in question form and at this early date in Obama’s presidency, not only didn’t serve as a good point of argument, but was so hyperbolic as to almost be silly, that is if it weren’t written by Cole, who certainly is anything but. Put a question mark behind the hyperbole and it becomes a serious column of caution. Sorry, not buying it. No serious analyst can argue and win the debate at this date by saying anything in the Af-Pak region is heading towards “Obama’s Vietnam.” Citing the sad case of a funeral doesn’t make it so. Unless, of course, Juan is making the case that Obama is inheriting Reagan’s mess of the Af-Pak region, not unlike the messes handed down on Vietnam that started decades earlier, of which there is absolutely no evidence that is Cole’s case.

The danger of Obama becoming mired down in Afghanistan and Pakistan is very real, and is obvious to anyone who knows the history of imperial interventions in the former.

The statement above by Cole is something to which I can agree. The seriousness in no way makes the situation a potential “Obama’s Vietnam.” Read any estimate from Secretary Gates and you’ll find that the numbers of troops being added won’t be anywhere near to Iraq. When you think of airstrikes during Vietnam, a solitary drone strike is hardly the model. Coles’ military analogies don’t come close, because there is no comparison whatsoever.

How Cole gets from one drone strike to question it as a precursor to “Obama’s Vietnam” is certainly not the stuff of Hunter S. Thompson, but of the left side equivalent to an unhinged wingnut rant without foundation for the argument at hand. Juan offers a dire warning of epic proportions, because Vietnam put the Democrats in the wilderness for over a decade. Thus the tone of my entire piece, which is why Bob Woodward was included. As Woodward warned of a scandal to come, Cole warns of Obama’s Vietnam to come, without any evidence to date that this is even remotely possible. Both men warning of horrors to come for Obama, one week into his presidency.

I also realize that the line on fundamentalists gives the impression of a monolithic group, which they are not. But Cole’s argument in his post today about voting patterns is as lame as his first, frankly. What may happen, even though it never has, shouldn’t be added up as evidence to question a potential “Obama’s Vietnam.”

Additionally, I realize Juan isn’t a pacifist, but if you read my post what I stated was that “traditional media sources” are using posts like Cole’s to go after “the antiwar left,” which was put in parentheses for a reason.

As to the legalities of the strike, that’s an open debate still. You can begin research here and here, but it remains a topic of debate in an age of non-state enemies. Besides, permission might have been given, though no one would admit it openly.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I know righteous people on our side who think any security expansion in Afghanistan will doom Obama, with Pakistan capable of drawing us into a nation’s meltdown. But people against any military security expansion, however small, are using the analogy of Vietnam on this region in the hopes of scaring away support for any efforts, even though nothing’s been started. I’m against the fear mongering openly used by Cole in “Obama’s Vietnam?”, with other people on our side using scare tactics to frighten away support of the new president’s foreign policy before he makes his case.

Cole’s piece in Salon is all about the hair on fire hyperbole that one bombing from President Obama, barely one week in office, should have serious people actually questioning whether this will be “Obama’s Vietnam”; whether the new Democratic president might be headed for his own Af-Pak version of Vietnam. If that’s not analysis on the wings of hyperbole, nothing is.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Wherein Juan Cole Loses the Thread

By on 26 January 2009

–updated–

Oh, for criminy sakes! President Obama has been in office less than one week, but a notable Middle East scholar, someone very respected, is asking whether Obama delivering on his campaign rhetoric regarding Pakistan (see drone strike last week), well, could it signal “Obama’s Vietnam?” Talk about your wingnut New Years gift, presented on the wings of hyperbole.

On Friday, President Barack Obama ordered an Air Force drone to bomb two separate Pakistani villages, killing what Pakistani officials said were 22 individuals, including between four and seven foreign fighters. Many of Obama’s initiatives in his first few days in office — preparing to depart Iraq, ending torture and closing Guantánamo — were aimed at signaling a sharp turn away from Bush administration policies. In contrast, the headline about the strike in Waziristan could as easily have appeared in December with “President Bush” substituted for “President Obama.” Pundits are already worrying that Obama may be falling into the Lyndon Johnson Vietnam trap, of escalating a predecessor’s halfhearted war into a major quagmire. What does Obama’s first military operation tell us about his administration’s priorities?[...] – Juan Cole

Really? Already? “Lyndon Johnson” and “major quagmire” all at once, with “Vietnam trap” the cherry on top? And from Juan Cole. You expect this crap from Bob Woodward, but Cole? More:

The risk Obama takes in continuing the Bush administration policy of bombing Pakistani territory is provoking further anger in the public of that country against the United States and harming the legitimacy of Zardari’s fragile elected government. A Gallup poll done last summer found that 45 percent of Pakistanis believe that the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan poses a threat to their country. Of Pakistanis who expressed an opinion on the matter, an overwhelming majority believed that the cooperation between the U.S. and the Pakistani military in the “war on terror” has mainly benefited Washington. If a more muscular American policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan sufficiently angers the Pakistani public, they could start voting for religious parties, delivering a nuclear state into the hands of Muslim fundamentalists.

Could? Yeah, and Osama could be caught tomorrow.

Whether President Obama approved continuing these strikes or not, he did, the fundamentalists in Pakistan will continue their work to make an Islamic state independent of what the new American President does or does not do. That’s no reason for U.S. policy to shift away from targeting militants for military strike in FATA, if intelligence proves it worthy. As Cole states at the end of his piece, it’s not like military strikes are the only part of Obama’s Af-Pak strategy:

Obama’s policy toward Pakistan is not solely military. He appointed as his special advisor on Pakistan and Afghanistan veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who played an important role in peace negotiations over Bosnia in the 1990s. The new president, who has praised Pakistan’s return to civilian parliamentary rule, has pledged to triple civilian aid. Opinion polling shows that more civilian development monies and less focus on military equipment are precisely what a majority of the Pakistani public want. Obama also intends to tie the annual amount of military aid released to the actual performance of the Pakistani military in preventing cross-border raids of FATA militants into Afghanistan. Allegations have swirled for the past year that rogue cells in the feared Inter-Services Intelligence of the Pakistani military have been actively sending the militants to hit targets inside Afghanistan, including the Indian embassy at Kabul.

The Jamaat-e-Islami protest picture accompanying Juan Cole’s piece almost seems like a tease. Like if radical Islamists are protesting the drone strike, just how bad could it be? Oh, right, Pakistan is teetering, so one push might do it. Some think the argument should be no military action at all, which includes in Afghanistan, using Iraq, Vietnam… and every other prior military engagement as proof that military engagement isn’t wise, so it cannot work or shouldn’t be done.

Utilizing military scapegoats in order to define engagement commitment and policy shift should not be confused with good debate.

Schake is asking exactly the right question — which many advising Obama seem to not be investigating vigorously. Why are the Taliban succeeding so dramatically in the assessments of Afghans? And what has happened to the residual support that Brzezinski hoped would hold us over? – Steve Clemons

In other words, unlike Bush, who made everything about Anything But What Clinton Did, Obama will approve airstrikes if they are warranted in Pakistan (or elsewhere), not stop them just because it was Bush policy. Obviously some will refuse the distinction, proving that Obama is just like Bush. Ri-ight.

But “Obama’s Vietnam?” This is where esteemed liberals are willing to take the plot line just one week out from Obama’s inauguration? Doesn’t bode well for the upcoming Af-Pak debate, but this is what traditional media sources are talking about when they report about “the antiwar left” going after Obama.

Sean Hannity says thanks. Or who knows, maybe it’s a gift.

UPDATE: Juan Cole responds.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Bill Kristol is Done

By on 26 January 2009

Perhaps no other notable conservative has had such an inauspicious tenure than William Kristol at the New York Times. How many columns did he get things completely wrong? Today was his swan song. He killed it too, but at least he got his first facts correct, well, almost.

All good things must come to an end. Jan. 20, 2009, marked the end of a conservative era. …Conservative policies have on the whole worked — insofar as any set of policies can be said to “work” in the real world. Conservatives of the Reagan-Bush-Gingrich-Bush years have a fair amount to be proud of. [...]

That is laugh out loud ludicrous. Conservative policies can be said to “work”? And why does Gingrich get slipped into the presidential line up? I smell a rat.

Reagan’s deregulation helped get us in this mess, with George W. Bush’s tax cuts in a time of war the capper on our economic collapse. We won’t even turn to broadcast ownership monopolies across radio, which led to the rise of Rush and Sean, even Christian broadcasting, another monopoly on Armed Forces radio, that was just recently crashed, though it leads liberals by a mile.

But the real hilarity of Kristol’s analysis of conservative policies working comes when you look at Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was Ronald Reagan, with his CIA guy Bill Casey, who ballooned Carter’s initial Pakistan policy down the road of building madrassas and arming the Islamists in the country, creating the ISI. It was Reagan’s foreign policy that began the slide of Pakistan into what it’s become today. Short-sightedness is the foundation for Republican foreign policy adventures, expediency the rule. George W. Bush’s Musharaff policy, as Biden called it, wasn’t any better, continually arming Pakistan’s military side while ignoring the festering FATA region.

Over the next three decades, it was modern conservatism, led at the crucial moment by Ronald Reagan, that assumed the task of defending liberty with strength and confidence. Can a revived liberalism, faced with a new set of challenges, now pick up that mantle? [...] Can Obama reshape liberalism to be, as it was under F.D.R., a fighting faith, unapologetically patriotic and strong in the defense of liberty? That would be a service to our country.

Kristol’s last column today says conservatism’s rise came because liberalism was weak. All philosophies require the right messengers, as do political movements. But he misses the reality that the liberalism of F.D.R. is not only still our Democratic fighting faith, but the reason Hillary Clinton rose to be the politician she is today. It’s the reason so many Americans, regardless of party, stood up to support Barack Obama to be our commander in chief, because conservatism’s bookend, neoconservatism, had taken this country into the dark valley of empire that had our last president pronouncing “preemptive war” as a new American battle cry. Defense of liberty is not just about war, and neither is patriotism. It is about living in a world with people to which we don’t agree and finding common ground to keep the peace, using our alliances also to keep our common enemies at bay by fighting together against them. See John F. Kennedy for that one.

Conservatism crashed on the political beach head on January 20, 2009 because it came up bankrupt, right along with our economic reality, as well as our foreign policy, which is in worse shape than it’s been in a generation. Republicans did that and it began in the same place we’re in trouble today, Afghanistan and Pakistan, on policies authored by the Republican king, Ronald Reagan. Yet once again, liberals are cleaning up after conservatives, not only on finance, as WJC did in the 1990′s, but on all fronts foreign policy.

But none of this has stopped people like Sean Hannity from telling Republicans to look back, look back and follow Ronald Reagan, the man who invited the religious right into the conservative tent, which in the modern era is getting smaller every election season because of it. Conservatism is in more trouble than Kristol admits, especially if Republicans continue to listen to Rush on radio.

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

Afghanistan and Beyond

By on 25 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtQRclOyIM8&eurl

Zakaria focused on Afghanistan today on GPS. Among his guests were Steve Coll, president of New America Foundation, Rory Stewart, who once walked across Afghanistan, Barney Rubin, who was interviewed in December 2008 on Pakistan by Scott Horton. A part of that interview is above.

The debate about our role in Afghanistan, which must include an Af-Pak policy taking the countries together, will begin to intensify as Obama shifts resources and priorities. The Af-Pak region will be as important to Obama as the Middle East.

Re: the Gaza tunnels.

Laura Rozen on India gone missing from Holbrooke’s brief.

Marc Lynch takes aim at HRC’s likely choice to be Under-Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, which was reported by the Washington Post’s Al Kamen.

Evidently, al Qaeda needs to read American nursery rhymes. You know, stick and stones, because trying to make Obama into Bush is a child’s plan.

That was just a warm-up. In the weeks since, the terrorist group has unleashed a stream of verbal tirades against Barack Obama, each more venomous than the last. Obama has been called a “hypocrite,” a “killer” of innocents, an “enemy of Muslims.” He was even blamed for the Israeli military assault on Gaza, which began and ended before he took office.

“He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection,” an al-Qaeda spokesman declared in a grainy Internet video this month. [...]

“They’re highly uncertain about what they’re getting in this new adversary,” said Paul Pillar, a former CIA counterterrorism official who lectures on national security at Georgetown University. “For al-Qaeda, as a matter of image and tone, George W. Bush had been a near-perfect foil.” …

Al Jazeera English was the network to watch during the latest war in Gaza, which for Americans was online:

American viewership of Al-Jazeera English rose dramatically during the Israel-Hamas war, partly because the channel had what CNN and other international networks didn’t have: reporters inside Gaza. [...] Al-Jazeera had another draw: Its reporters were inside Gaza while international networks such as CNN were barred by Israel from sending reporters in throughout the entire war. Israeli TV focused mostly on Israeli casualty reports and Hamas rocket barrages. …

Another media story, The New York Times has a simple story of the Taliban using radio to terrorize.

Via the Arab Times comes the news story of the day: Gender equality pivotal to social development, says Kuwait delegate. The article cites the recent Israeli – Hamas war, making the point that it is women and children who sustain the most harm in these situations.

“The Kuwaiti government is making continuous efforts in cooperation with civil society institutions to enhance women’s empowerment which bore fruit and led to an apparent positive transformation in the last few years,” he said. “Kuwaiti women have been able to assert themselves in politics after gaining their full political rights in an effective way. They had the access to elections and leading political posts including ministerial portfolios,” Al-Najem poited out. Kuwait pursues its determined efforts to achieve gender equality and women’s empowerment in political decision-making in a bid to enhance social peace and stability. [...]

“All of us have to help Palestinian women play their due roles in the development of their society. Dealing with the Arab Economic, Social and Development Summit, hosted by Kuwait on January 19-20 in the presence of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Al-Najem said His Highness the Amir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah announced during the summit a financial initiative to bail out the private sector and small and medium -size industries in the Arab countries.

“Kuwait pledged to offer $500 million to the total funds of dollar two billion of the initiative which has the ultimate goal of achieving socio-economic development,” he pointed out, voicing hope that the initiative would promote empowerment for women. Kicked off on Jan 21 under the theme of “ Empowerment of Women”, NAM’s second ministerial conference will come to a close later Saturday.

More of this from Arab nations, please. A lot more. Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s make sure Pakistani aid is based on something beyond military firepower.

In other areas, Ethiopia has pulled out of Somalia, leaving Islamists are taking advantage of the void, begining in Mogadishu.

Sri Lanka is making news after the army chief claimed to have taken a rebel stronghold.

According to Jeff Stein, where will Obama’s first trip be? South America. Summit of the Americas, where Obama will run head long into Hugo Chavez.

Meanwhile back at home, Barack Obama has an economic crisis, with meetings with Republicans scheduled in the coming week. John McCain said today that he will not vote for the stimulus as it stands today. Where was this McCain before the election? Lesson learned a bit too late. But all in all, this is some inheritance from Mr. Bush.

Democracy Arsenal chronicles some of the reaction to the global financial meltdown.

Tom Ricks on our generals as dinosaurs.

Oh… and Happy Chinese New Year, a bit belatedly.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Commander In Chief Obama Sends a Signal

By on 23 January 2009

–updated–


map via Washington Post

The shaky Pakistani government of Asif Ali Zardari has expressed hopes for warm relations with Obama, but members of Obama’s new national security team have already telegraphed their intention to make firmer demands of Islamabad than the Bush administration, and to back up those demands with a threatened curtailment of the plentiful military aid that has been at the heart of U.S.-Pakistani ties for the past three decades. [...]

KABOOM.

Are you hearing me now?

Any questions on priorities? Not from me. The C.I.A. bombing campaign targeting militants in Pakistan will continue. Check.

Any problems with understanding Obama’s campaign promises on Pakistan? Nope. Answered.

Any criticism coming from this quadrant of the left dial on the strike? Not a chance. I’m in.

So for any neocons who believe President Obama isn’t serious about protecting America, please see the strike in Waziristan, which was likely authorized by our new president otherwise it wouldn’t have happened.

Oh, and about all that whining regarding Lynn and lobbying? Shut up.

William Lynn, President Barack Obama’s pick for deputy Defense secretary and a former Raytheon lobbyist, says he will sell his stock in the military contractor to free him from conflicts in the new administration. [...]

Seriously, everyone is overcompensating at this point, jumping on everything President Obama does or doesn’t do in a nanosecond. Advice to everyone: try the decaf. He’s just getting started.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS BACK

By on 22 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN_2raLp55A

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmJ5pDQ-MdU 
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GwdmEaCdT4

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1qT3B6qxGU httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IARVtDTxGDU

In introducing her boss, Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton once again continued to put down the doubters.

“…We want to do our very best work in furtherance of your goals. … I pledge to you on behalf of the thousands of dedicated public servants who serve you on behalf of diplomacy and development our very best efforts. It is an honor to be working to fulfill the goals you have set for our country. Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.”

Obama responded in kind.

“… I’ve given you an early gift: Hillary Clinton.” – President Barack Obama

Read full story · Comments { 20 }