An unfortunate consequence of the hunt for Osama Bin Laden

http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/07/28/330767266/taliban-in-pakistan-derails-world-polio-eradication

If you have followed the OBL story and/or saw "Zero Dark Thirty", maybe you are familiar with the fact that the CIA exploited a hepatitis vaccination program in Pakistan to locate OBL through DNA matching. Unfortunately, word about that got to the Pak Taliban, and now they don't trust any medical vaccination programs.

Humanity has been spending billions trying to eradicate polio for decades, and we are mostly successful everywhere BUT Pakistan. Since 2012, vaccination workers have been targeted and killed (about 60 dead), and families in Taliban-controlled areas are intimidated and discouraged from getting vaccinated.

The Taliban say that is is outrageous that the CIA would use a humanitarian program as cover for its operations. Of course it's also outrageous that they are killing medical workers and families trying to protect their kids, but their paranoia/savagery has some justification. Yet another unintended consequence of some smarty-pants at Langley (or Jessica Chastain) thinking this would be great way to find OBL. I understand if that was "the only way", but the most global and well-funded intel org in the world had 10 years to find OBL through other channels (incl. torture), and failed. So now they put thousands of lives at risk just to take out an ailing, marginalized terrorist. 

The Boston bombers and radical Islam

 (post from April 19, before more info was made available)

http://news.yahoo.com/stories-2-brothers-suspected-bombing-124623274.html
http://www.theworld.org/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-classmate/

Some clues are emerging about the bombers' motives, and unfortunately it is a familiar story with the older brother: devout Muslim, feeling alienated in America, etc. And the younger brother was about as American as it gets, with no signs of extremist tendencies (and all the features that we were told would dissuade people from radicalism: economic opportunities, education, freedoms, social life, etc.) - but I guess he was influenced by his brother. As Chechen immigrants, both had strong political views, but so do a lot of people and they know better than  to violently lash out.

A common liberal response after 9/11 was, "Let's not blame all of Islam for the evil that a few radicals commit. Islam is a peaceful faith. Jihadism is the logical response to Western imperialism and injustices. We need to reach out and give them an alternative positive message to counter the extremist Imams." While I still believe some of that, I think I have to come out and say that there is something really wrong with how Islam is practiced these days. Maybe that is obvious to others, but I guess I have been conditioned to feel ashamed to think it. 

Other religions are doing a lot of messed up things too, but I have to call a spade a spade and acknowledge that something is especially wrong and violent with Islam. Granted that it is a younger religion, and the Sunni-Shia conflict is similar to the Catholic-Protestant wars in Europe. It is a process, and an ugly, slow, violent one. In the past there have been better times and much worse times in Judeo-Christian-Muslim relations. So no need to get all apocalyptic now, though clearly we're not at a high point. Many people criticize the "peaceful Imams" for not coming out and denouncing the violent messages and behaviors of their peers. I agree with that. but they're not alone: "sane" Rabbis don't call out their radical Zionist counterparts, "good" priests were not that vocal to denounce the sex abusers. Religion is tricky. People inherently know right from wrong, but with competing priorities they often circle the wagons and irrationally cover for their beloved faith - even the most warped practitioners of it. But resistance like that prevents reforms and clean-ups from taking place, unless there is a major scandal (don't tell me Pope B resigned just because he was old and tired).

So getting back to Islam and the messages Imams are spreading to vulnerable young men - their scam is so ridiculous that it's inconceivable we are losing the idea war.

http://www.hbo.com/vice/index.html#/vice/talk/forums/item.html/eNrjcmbOYM5nLtQsy0xJzXfMS8ypLMlMds7PK0mtKFHPz0mBCQUkpqf6JeamcjIysiWWZqbYmhkZJZkYpqSqGrlYplgYAClDw1QjIGVhmAYSNDAwMjK0NEuxMEpNZWNkYwQA-fweVQ==

Vice TV was investigating how Taliban recruit suicide bombers, and in some cases they are 10 years old. These kids are illiterate, and their cultural norms encourage them to look up to their village elders/Imams, and reject foreign occupation and illegitimate central government authority. Prime "suckers" to be radicalized. They are devout Muslims, yet they have never read a page of the Koran. They live on $10 a day or less. They take the elders at their word when they claim that the Koran says it's good to kill infidels and you will be rewarded in heaven (doesn't say that of course). They also tell the kids that their bomb vests explode outwards and won't injure them during the attack. Unfortunately many kids fall for that. If those "holy men" are so devout, why do they lie to kids to get them to kill for them, while they hide in their Madrasas? And the vast majority of insurgent and bombing victims are other Muslims, which IS explicitly prohibited in the Koran.

Some kids can see through the BS and end up aborting their attacks, or turn themselves in to the authorities. The gov't tries to "re-educate" them and integrate them as peaceful members of society. But Taliban life is all they know, and unfortunately some of them end up returning to the Taliban, and get caught in another bombing attempt. It's the same as abused women getting rescued from a cult but returning to their sick leader later. We need to have a sense of belonging and purpose in our lives, even if we know it's bad for us.

So why can these depraved Imams convince otherwise peaceful, normal kids to be killers? They use the typical anti-American arguments. Sometime they don't even have to lie: American Crusaders raid Muslim lands, rape our women, steal our oil, mock the Prophet, and piss on the Koran. Unfortunately we are guilty of all of that. The #1 recruiting tool for Jihad is Abu Ghraib, and it's still salient today. Because of our hubris and disrespect, we are losing a very winnable idea war (partly because we are racist and religiously intolerant too). So for however messed up Islam, Christianity, and America are - we don't have to make it harder on ourselves.

There are always going to be a few violent extremists. But most of them just yell on the subway or in a cave with no audience, because people have better things to do. That should be our goal. Even though it apparently didn't work for the Boston bombers, we have to really invest in economic development and stop doing disrespectful things to Islam if we want to win. But even if we are 100% perfect from now on, we still have to deal with our past sins and blowback from the last generation of horrible Western-Muslim relations. A good reputation takes a long time to build, but can be destroyed in a moment. Then it takes even longer to repair. The idiotic older generation put us in this mess, and the Millennials will be cleaning it up their whole lives. But hopefully if they do right by people, we won't have to hear this debate over and over again, with innocents killed and families crying every year.

Massive mineral deposits found in Afghanistan

Oh, so that's why the war is "worth fighting for": http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?no_interstitial

Afghanistan is flush with iron, copper, gold, and rare expensive metals used in electronics. Soviet geologists first discovered some of the deposits during their failed occupation. Some Afghans retained their survey maps, which caught the attention of a USGS development team after our invasion. We conducted our own aerial surveys in 2006-7 which confirmed the mineral riches, but didn't act on the data until a Pentagon business development unit (that formerly worked in Iraq) got hold of it in 2009.

There are quite a few challenges, mind you, before Afghanistan becomes the "Saudi Arabia" of metals though. Some of the richest deposits are found in the hostile border regions near Pakistan, where even the NATO forces won't venture into. The deposits require heavy equipment and well trained workers to extract, and may be situated in tough mountainous terrain. Currently Afghanistan lacks even a km of railroad, and has no mining infrastructure (or really any modern infrastructure), so it would take decades of development and billions of foreign investment before they are ready. Yet as we have seen in Nigeria and other unstable oil nations, static industrial targets are easy pickings for insurgents and thieves. If they can attack NATO and UN compounds at will, they can easily disrupt mining production with sabotage or mere threats to workers. We know that we won't really pacify Afghanistan no matter how many surges we send. So if the price is right to justify mining there despite the risks, our security presence will probably need to be permanent, like our bases in the Gulf states. 

Another confounding factor is minerals-thirsty China. Although Afghanistan is "our project", the Chinese have already made their presence known by bribing and winning the rights to mine copper in some areas. So it's almost assured that the US and China will raise tensions competing for influence. And lastly, the culture of corruption in Afghanistan would probably just intensify with a new high-value economic sector. The US is among the top 20 least corrupt nations, and look how our MMS and mine safety regulators perform.

"The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new [mineral] wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced." -NYT

Also a very good Frontline doc summarizing our challenges in Afghanistan: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/

We're paying and pressuring the Pakistani government to help us defeat the Afghan Taliban, which is essentially the Afghan wing of the ISI. Yet an even greater regional security concern is the viability of the fragile pro-US regime in Islamabad, with its nuclear arsenal, rivalry with India, and threats from internal Islamist groups. So winning in Afghanistan means weakening our allies in Pakistan, and supporting Pakistan means condoning the Afghan Taliban. How are we supposed to resolve that paradox?

The FUBAR Afghan election

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/afghanistan_10-01.html
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23113#

These links tell a scary story of how the recent Afghan presidential election was, instead of a victory for democracy against the Taliban menace, actually a major setback undermining that nation and the West's hopes for its improvement. It seems that once the Obama administration took power and Richard Holbrooke was appointed as special envoy, corrupt and paranoid President Karzai was convinced that America sought to replace him. So he plotted for months to stack the upcoming election in his favor. The UN assistance mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA), desperate for some milestones of success amidst major security deterioration and stalled development under their watch, craved a "successful election". In order to demonstrate political progress, they turned over the reins to the Afghan government, instead of running and monitoring the process directly, as they did during the last election in 2004. So that is basically a recipe for disaster. And as in America, unfortunately the preparations for election caused governmental tunnel-vision and forced all other pressing Afghan issues to the back burner (education, infrastructure, justice, armed forces training, counter-narcotics, etc.). Security was concentrated on the polling stations instead of hunting Taliban, and it showed with several brazen Taliban attacks and bombings in "secure" urban areas like downtown Kabul. NATO deaths in the summer months leading up to the election were the highest in the war's 8-year history.

As one would expect, Karzai stacked the "independent election commission" with members partial to him, including foreigners to feign impartiality. All the warning signs of major fraud were obvious prior to the election. An American diplomat and deputy special rep to the UN Afghan mission, Peter Galbraith (son of the economist John Galbraith) raised these concerns to UNAMA, and was summarily ignored by chief Kai Eide. Galbraith's investigations had shown that the Afghan election commission set up many voting stations in Taliban-controlled regions where less than 10% of the populace was expected to turn out (due to poor security and threats to their lives). Those stations were located in areas too remote or dangerous for monitoring, and probably only existed on paper. Yet after the election, thousands of pro-Karzai votes came streaming in from those locations. Karzai eventually and improbably netted 54% of the overall vote, and his leading challenger, Abdullah Abdullah has challenged the legitimacy.

Galbraith's office had collected evidence of this, and he feels that his boss deliberately suppressed it. Their professional relationship deteriorated to the point where Eide complained to Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and had Galbraith removed. Ban chose appearances over the truth. The UN and the West were so desperate to pronounce the election a success as a propaganda blow to the Taliban that they covered up fraud. But as presidential challenger Abdullah said, the Taliban are obviously the biggest threat to Afghanistan's future, but an illegitimate, corrupt government is second. The UN doesn't seem to care. Somehow Karzai has convinced them to back him, maybe through bribery. Of course the UN's official excuse is that it has no "right" to interfere in the elections of a sovereign state, and we should be patient and let the Afghans sort it out. They do admit that fraud took place, but do not concede that the fraud was preventable, and overwhelmingly in Karzai's favor. The Obama administration and Holbrooke have been fairly quiet on the issue as well, even moreso than the disputed Iranian elections and Honduras coup d'etat.

If America, NATO, and the UN came to Afghanistan to help the people, show them good governance, and bring them into the 21st Century, then how can we tolerate this result? We toppled the "illegitimate" regime of the Taliban in 2001, but now we sit on the sidelines while a corrupt, inept political parasite (of course appointed by the Bushies) hijacks a nation that is vital to our security interests in the region. The only worse result would be if Osama won the election, legitimately (and by now I'm sure he is more popular among Afghans than Karzai). No wonder no one trusts or respects us and the Smurfs. We screw up Yugoslavia, Congo, Haiti, Rwanda, East Timor, Iraq, Afghanistan, and pretty much every other warzone we go.