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 | Pakistan

In Our World, and Cato Institute Event

By on 15 March 2009
Photobucket

Don’t look now, but Nawaz Sharif has been arrested in Pakistan.

It seems fitting that Pakistanis have begun to worry about extremism. While Osama’s popularity softens from around 50% to 34% thinking he will “do the right thing in world affairs:

Overwhelmingly, Pakistanis are worried about the impact of extremism on their country and people, says a new survey conducted by PEW (IRI) global research.

In 2008 72 per cent said they were concerned about Islamic extremism in their country, and over half — 54 per cent — said they were very concerned, the highest per centage among the eight countries on the survey where the question was asked (the others were Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Lebanon, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Turkey). [...]

Meanwhile, “the long march” continues, as does the crackdown in Pakistan, with opposition party leaders and other activists going into hiding to keep from being arrested.

A story floated about Russia, Venezuela and Cuba have the wingnuts spinning Cuban missile crisis theories, because “if” and “could” equals action to jumpy Republicans. Memeorandum has the roundup.

Secretary Clinton to Mexico later this month.

Clinton’s talks in Mexico would cover the global financial crisis, trade and the war against drugs, as well as the explosion of narcotics-related violence, Duguid said.

[...] The State Department last month warned U.S. citizens of the recent surge in violence, particularly near the border, and advised traveling only on main roads during daylight, sticking to well-known tourist spots and avoiding areas frequented by prostitutes or drug dealers.

With due respect to the State Department, there should be an all out travel advisory regarding Mexico that should read like this: You’re thinking about traveling where? Are you nuts?

That brings me to the forum on Friday at the Cato Institute, Can the Pentagon be Fixed? One of the people on the panel was Col. Douglas Macgregor. One specific point Col. Macgregor (retired) made I’ve come to the conclusion is unassailable. The Caribbean basin will likely become an increasing challenge for the U.S., though Macgregor’s assessment is much more dire. He believes firmly that homeland security is more urgent than the troubles we are facing in the Af-Pak region, something that is sobering in the extreme. However, that’s looking forward, because for my money, right now nothing is more urgent than the situation in Pakistan.

Macgregor believes “high impact, low footprint” missions will be more important going forward, because the era of the U.S. being “indispensable is over.” Macgregor: We are not going to garrison the world. The world doesn’t want it and we can’t afford it. That’s as close to a quote as I can get, but you catch the drift.

But it was on the Mexico cartel question from the audience that Macgregor hit on something very rarely covered. It’s not the drug cartels, in his opinion, that are so dangerous. “The transportation structure is enormous,” but also deadly lethal to the United States. The people in charge of the transportation system only want to be paid and they don’t care what they’re transporting. The drug cartels have one product they’re interested in pushing and selling, so they’re focused on it. The transportation structure, vast and unlimited, is different. In Macgregor’s judgment, though he’s not alone, the Coast Guard is vastly underfunded and underequipped, but he also believes the U.S. Navy should have a larger presence in the Caribbean basin.

Oh, and by the way, Macgregor thinks we should be out of Iraq yesterday. Containment worked before and can again. I remember the first time I wrote something along those lines, pushing for this tried form of strategy to be utilized again. I was pilloried with mail. Let’s hope colonels have clout.

But one question from a reporter from Military.com was very interesting: If you had 2 minutes with Robert Gates what would you tell him?

Winslow Wheeler: Tear up the phony stuff like the Levin-McCain legislation. Do what you talked about in your Foreign Affairs article. (–Notes via tweets on Twitter.–)

Col. Macgregor: “Persistent warfare” needs to end; develop containment policies.

Danielle Brian: Stop saying top guy at Raytheon is the right guy. Learn to say no.

Tom Ricks: Ten percent (10%) of new brigadier generals should be people who have been blackballed.

Let me just say that Tom Ricks is priceless. (See my tweets during the forum for more.)

Oh, and as for the F-22, Winslow Wheeler was blunt: “It’s a dog.” Danielle Brian thinks it’s part of a larger test for President Obama. “This is going to be a real test of Obama’s administration” says Danielle Brian, which she’s said before, as a staunch critic of the F-22, but also someone pushing for real change at the Pentagon. If Obama yields to Congress it will be the same old stuff all over again. Taxpayers paying for a military force structure that used to protect us, but in its current form isn’t ready for the 21st century threats we face.

How about we at least test the weapons we purchase before we order dozens of them? …and while we’re at it, Congress needs to quit thinking and saying that defense budget cutting is not supporting the troops. The Pentagon’s bloated budget hides behind that lie.

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

Taliban Continues Push on Kabul

By on 12 March 2009

All the talks about reconciliation with the Taliban aren’t coming in a vacuum, obviously. Consider this yet another Afghan security forces nightmare, long slog edition.

A top Taliban commander has told CNN his insurgents are poised and ready to attack Kabul and could strike virtually anywhere in the city. It would be tempting to put this down to Taliban propaganda except one of Kabul’s top cops is saying the same thing.

“We are working on a security strategy for the city and if we don’t get it right, they [the Taliban] can attack at any minute, at any hour, any time,” says Commander Mohammed Daud Amin, in charge of securing the Kabul district that includes the Presidential Palace and many government ministries.

Proof of the menacing threat came just last month when eight Taliban fighters, bristling with weapons and suicide vests, burst into three government buildings in the center of Kabul. [...]

There’s no way forward without dealing with the Taliban. Zalmay Rassoul, Hamid Karzai’s national security adviser, explains the Afghan side of reconciliation, via Spencer Ackerman:

Pressed by another reporter, Rassoul divided the insurgency ino three groups. “The hardcore leadership [with] very close links to al-Qaeda and other state actors” are “irreconcilable,” he said, and the Karzai government wouldn’t negotiate with them. That would mean the Quetta Shura of Mullah Omar, and presumably the leaders of affiliated insurgent groups like Jalaleddin Haqqani or Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Similarly, “the foot soldiers” were not people with whom to negotiate. “An economic alternative is the way forward for them,” Rassoul said. “These are people lured into terror… it’s our responsibility to lure them out.”

Negotiated reconciliation is the way forward for “the midlevel commanders,” he said. “Our purpose is to reconcile with them… Whether they give up violence up front now or late, it doesn’t matter… What matters is they renounce [violence] at some point.” Rassoul didn’t offer any particular guess on the size of this “midlevel” pool. But the day before, the Afghan foreign minister, Rangin Dadfar Spanta, said that reconciliation was a realistic prospect for a “remarkable” proportion of the insurgency.

Vice President Biden’s comments in Belgium give the foundation of whatever negotiations will happen with the Taliban, some of which was posited through a The New York Times piece recently.

The idea of what concessions would be made is well beyond the scope of my being able to answer, except to say that whatever is initiated will have to be ultimately initiated by the Afghan government, and will have to be such that it would not undermine a legitimate Afghan government. But I do think it is worth engaging and determining whether or not there are those who are willing to participate in a secure and stable Afghan state. – Vice President Biden

Understanding that the Taliban is not a monolithic group and there are also drug thugs and war lords beyond that are in the mix as well, not to mention Pakistani Taliban. As an aside, let’s not forget where the Taliban come from in the first place: Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy misadventure (and a lot of Saudi cash).

Then there is the reality of the Afghan women, whose plight must be considered during the time the “reconciliation” is being worked out. Making the women a part of any negotiation, not an afterthought that splashes across CNN, followed by horror stories of torture via some special report hosted by Christiane Amanpour.

Just keep repeating to yourself, our presence in Afghanistan isn’t about democracy, ala Bush-Cheney. It’s about keeping Afghanistan from becoming a failed state. Because regardless of the fact that Pakistan is the real challenge, no one has figured out or been able to explain how we keep Pakistan from going off a cliff (it’s presently teterring) if Afghanistan fails.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Engaging the Muslim World

By on 12 March 2009
Photobucket

Nice title for Juan Cole’s new book. It’s something we’ve done a horrible job doing since 9/11. But the timeliness takes on new importance when looking through the prism of the Freeman withdrawal for NIC. Cole’s assessment on President Obama is stark, the review devastating:

Israeli Apartheid will continue unabated under Obama. – Juan Cole

Meanwhile, the Washington Post editorial today embarrasses the paper and everyone who trusts it, labeling Chas Freeman’s rhetoric as “crackpot tirades.” But the worst aspect of the editorial is that they naively believe that the campaign against Freeman manifested out of thin air. Labeling what happened to Mr. Freeman as a “reasonable” approach to asking if Freeman was right for the job is down right ludicrous.

The blundering silence of the Obama administration during the Steve Rosen and friends assault (Rosen is now suing AIPAC for defamation – oh, the irony), has hurt President Obama, of that there can be no doubt. How much is not yet known, though anyone can sympathize with Juan’s pessimism.

Scott Horton interviews Juan about his new book, asking him six questions. Here’s one small portion regarding Pakistan, which is always on my radar, especially these days when the major parties look like they’re about to wage political civil war:

As for Pakistan, the demand that the government exert control over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas is frankly daft. I’ve been through that territory. You might as well demand that we exert control over all the rattlesnakes in New Mexico. And the conviction that the security of the U.S. mainland depends on the urban Pakistani government regimenting those rural clansmen makes no sense to me. Rugged areas where the government is weak are obviously possible havens for terrorists, but they also typically lack the infrastructure to enable major operations to be conducted directly from such territories. We’d be better off working with Pakistan to put in better airport security and computer tracking of people flying in and out. The Pakistani military has been fighting hard in Bajaur, one of the tribal agencies, against the Pakistani Taliban since August. They have had some success, but displaced 300,000 Pashtuns from their homes. That is going to settle the Pashtuns down?

Then there is Iran, which includes Israel and the entire Middle East mess, the biggest area of possible breakthrough for which President Obama could be known. That is if the Obama administration doesn’t kowtow to the Israel Lobby. Right now there is no indication they have the courage to stand up to them, but since this is urgent and Obama understands this, as does Clinton, I remain in the camp that believes the Administration will find a way through, though I fully admit this is out of necessity of the situation, not any evidence coming from the Administration.

The U.S. relationship with Iran is the most perilous area of U.S. foreign policy going forward. But there are actually only two bilateral issues between Washington and Tehran that put that relationship on the front burner. They comprise, first, Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program, which the U.S. fears could veer toward dual use and result in a nuclear weapon. Second, Iran’s rejectionist stance toward U.S. ally Israel, and its support for the Lebanese Hezbollah and, allegedly, for Hamas in Gaza, are highly objectionable to the United States.

[...] As for the Iranian involvement in the Levant, it is the Israelis who give the ayatollahs that opening and they could easily close it off. If they just gave back the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for a Camp David-style peace treaty with Damascus, and gave back the Shebaa Farms occupied territory and made peace with Lebanon, they would deny Hezbollah its pretext for remaining armed and remove a key Hezbollah patron, Syria, from the equation. If they stopped blockading and half-starving the Gazans, ceased colonizing the West Bank and granted the Palestinians a state, Sunni, Christian, and secular Palestinians would not want or need Iranian money and arms. …

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

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 }

Feinstein Steps In It

By on 13 February 2009

I’m knee deep in packing, so forgive the intermittent posting right now, as I prepare for another cross-country trip from west to east. Meanwhile… back in the land of international relations…

Honestly, I really don’t know where to start with this one.

Over the last few years Pakistan has been very vocal in pushing back on any U.S. action inside FATA or outlying areas, which includes our Predator drone strikes. But not everything is always as it seems, especially inside countries where the people have shown direct opposition to anything U.S. So why during the Senate Intelligence Committee’s hearings for U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair did Senator Feinstein feel compelled to spell out the Pakistani’s knowledge and help with U.S. strikes inside that country?

At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise at Pakistani opposition to the ongoing campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets along Pakistan’s northwest border.

“As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base,” she said of the planes.

Blair’s response was classic: Blair did not respond directly to Feinstein’s remark, except to say that Pakistan is “sorting out” its cooperation with the United States.

See Spencer Ackerman.

Since Feinstein is chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, you’d think she’d get how to speak about such things, without letting her ego run amok and reveal something that puts the Pakistani government behind the target zone.

Experts said the disclosure could create political problems for the fledgling government in Islamabad.

“If accurate, what this says is that Pakistani involvement, or at least acquiescence, has been much more extensive than has previously been known,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. “It puts the Pakistani government in a far more difficult position [in terms of] its credibility with its own people. Unfortunately it also has the potential to threaten Pakistani-American relations.”

Now, in response, Feinstein’s office is being defensive, saying she was simply citing what has already been reported in the Washington Post. Considering Ms. Feinstein led the initial charge against Leon Panetta for CIA, you’ve got to wonder, well, loose lips sink international relationships and the cooperation we need to be effective on counterinsurgency. Feinstein knows better.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

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 }

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 }

A.Q. Khan: ‘I don’t care about the rest of the world’

By on 07 February 2009

Khan only cares “about his country.” Well, that’s obvious.

A.Q. Khan was released from house arrest on Friday.

A Pakistani court today freed nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan from unofficial house arrest, capping a rehabilitation that began almost from the moment he confessed in 2004 to providing sensitive nuclear technology to rogue regimes around the world. [...]

Clinton voiced “concern,” with the promise that more will be said on the issue at some point. But someone at State who wants to remain anonymous told AFP that there is also belief some of Khan’s network may still be active.

Yet another steaming remnant of the Bush-Cheney Musharaff policy in Pakistan.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

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 }

Gibbs Side Steps Pakistan Strike Question

By on 23 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SaCbfCZxpo

Chuck Todd asked another stupid question today about the possibility of a second stimulus, before the first stimulus was even off the ground. Gibbs quickly rolled him. Todd’s follow up on Pakistan was greeted by Gibbs refusing to comment or give a prepared statement from the administration: “I’m not going to get into these matters.” So Gibbs refused to confirm the reported strike inside Pakistan:

Suspected U.S. missiles killed 18 people on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border Friday, security officials said, the first attacks on the al-Qaida stronghold since President Barack Obama took office.

At least five foreign militants were among those killed in the strikes by unmanned aircraft in two parts of the frontier region, an intelligence official said without naming them. There was no information on the identities of the others.

Pakistan’s leaders had expressed hope Obama might halt the strikes, but few observers expected he would end a tactic that U.S. officials say has killed several top al-Qaida operatives and is denying the terrorist network a long-held safe haven. [...]

Ground rule press question: Is Robert Gibbs really going to refuse to answer national security questions like the one today? Seriously, why wasn’t Robert Gibbs prepared with some statement on the Pakistan drone strike? I’m asking.

But Gibbs also refused to buy in to the “war on terror” question, which lies at the heart of our foreign policy debacles. Consider this another chapter on as the “war on terror” turns. Dana Priest weighs in today:

President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the “war on terror,” as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.

While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away…

It should be noted that the “war on terror” phrase’s usefulness has been rebutted by top military men and women. Obama has made it clear that the entire tool box of options will be utilized in our foreign policy. Muscular diplomacy is not waging “war,” but engaging people, friend or foe. Not everything can be done with a gun.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

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 }

Afghanistan and Iran

By on 19 January 2009

The New York Times Review of Books has an important article that deals with both. Pakistan is not mentioned once, which is very curious, except for the reality that there are forces beyond Pakistan that impact Afghanistan, especially since the Iranians have a vested interest in Afghanistan’s stability. The article is a reminder of the squandered possibilities of President George. W. Bush. Flashback to 2006:

…Iran has distributed its largess, more than $200 million in all, mostly here in the west but also in the capital, Kabul. It has set up border posts against the heroin trade, and next year will begin work on new road and construction projects and a rail line linking the countries. In Kabul, its projects include a new medical center and a water testing laboratory.

Iran’s ambassador, Muhammad Reza Bahrami, portrayed his government’s activities as neighborly good works, with a certain self-interest. Iran, he said, is eager to avoid repeating the calamities of the last 20 years, when two million Afghan refugees streamed over the border.

“Our strategy in Afghanistan is based on security, stability and developing a strong central government,” he said. “It not only benefits the Afghan people, it’s in our national interest.” [...]

Though, obviously, Iran is not totally benevolent in these goals.

However, the article in the NYT Review of Books outlines the complexities and relationships that require President-elect Obama’s attention the minute he takes office. You cannot deal as Bush-Cheney did on a crisis by crisis basis. Our foreign policy must turn to integration and cooperation between countries and the U.S. if anything is to be accomplished.

But Iran also has critical interests in Afghanistan, its neighbor to the east, where it has long opposed the Taliban and is concerned to avoid the chaos that would result from the fall of the increasingly threatened Karzai government. The Iranian government places a high priority on defeating al-Qaeda and the Taliban—extremist Sunni groups which it views as direct threats to Iran’s Shiites—as well as on reducing Afghanistan’s rampant drug trade.

Of course the United States has other important concerns about Iran, including Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and the threat it poses to Israel—particularly in view of the recent conflict in Gaza. But the paramount issues of Iran’s nuclear enrichment and its influence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we argue, are closely interrelated, and the way they are dealt with could determine the US’s ability to address other problems in the US–Iranian relationship.

Under President Bush, Iran’s nuclear program and its role in Iraq and Afghanistan were treated as wholly separate issues. The US government largely refused to talk to Iran on the nuclear issue and instead relied on sanctions and hectoring. By contrast, on the issue of Iraq, it agreed to ambassadorial talks, although these were largely limited to discussions of Iraq’s internal security issues, including Iranian provision of weapons to insurgents. On Afghanistan, aside from occasional allegations about collaboration with the Taliban—this despite Iran’s well-known opposition to the group—the Bush administration studiously ignored Iran. As a consequence, little progress was made on any front.

If President Obama is to dissuade Iran from building a nuclear bomb, as well as develop a successful regional strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, he will have to develop an integrated approach toward Iran that addresses all three issues. read more

Read full story · Comments { 2 }