A good (but depressing) interview about Pakistan and Afghanistan

http://www.worldaffairs.org/events/event/1422#.VQgPGmaEr9k

I didn't listen to the whole thing, but the guest had a lot of no-BS, compelling comments about the dire situation in that region. She also stressed the economic and foreign policy angles of the conflict (often ignored by the MSM), such as:

• How do we expect the current Afghan gov't to survive when the US set it up in such a bloated model that it can only afford to pay 25% of its staff (and a regime that can't pay its people will surely collapse)? To make matters worse, global donors are reneging on their aid promises (understandably). Plus there's the lingering handicap of exceptional corruption.
• Why are we not asking China and India to get more involved in Afghanistan, as they have huge interests at stake and could serve as a check against Pakistan and Islamists? Instead we support/enable Pakistan, whose interests are pretty much diametrically opposed to ours?
• The Afghan national police and army are basically warlords and militias in uniform. When NATO leaves and things start to devolve, those fighters will pretty much fragment and return to the pre-2001 invasion state.

2 NYPD officers "executed" by black man, possibly for revenge

This is terrible news: 2 NYPD officers "executed" by black man (motive possibly revenge for Brown, Garner, etc.).

http://news.yahoo.com/two-nypd-officers-shot-in-patrol-car-in-brooklyn-212637751.html

It won't help the "Black lives matter" movement (may turn off the centrist public to their plight), and will probably make the cops even more angry, fearful, and aggressive. The alleged killer (a younger black man) seemed to be a desperate, distressed person who was wanted in connection with another shooting. What he did was abominable. For all we know, those 2 officers were excellent public servants, and totally nonviolent and nonracist (one Asian, one Latino, both with wives and one with kids).

Sadly, it reminds me of the even more terrible recent Pakistan school massacre. Let me repeat - both attacks were totally unjustifiable and barbaric. But for background, the Pakistani Army had been heavy-handedly raiding and bombing Taliban-held villages as part of a crack-down. Women and children were killed without hesitation. The Taliban fighters were obviously upset and wanted to strike back at a soft target, to make the Army "hurt like they were hurt". When a powerful force shows contempt for you and treats you like a subhuman, and you have no channels for peaceful redress and no one seems to care about your pain, there's only so much a human can take. Eventually some unstable members of that community (with training and weapons) will lash out and strike back to try to get even, because they have nothing to lose. Would they rather just die a slow death and fade away in silence? Or would they rather get some satisfaction that they struck fear and suffering in the hearts of their enemy? Oppression breeds desperation, which could be a catalyst for atrocity.

So for urban black America, day in and day out many deal with prejudice, mistreatment, and in some cases violence (murder rate for US blacks is over 4X that of whites). Obama even said that every successful black professional like him has been mistaken for the help at a fancy event. I can't imagine what it feels like to be constantly surrounded by that negativity, disrespect, and hostility - even though you just want to live and let live, and didn't cross anyone. It's just because you exist. Maybe the media inflamed the racially-sensitive situation, but with unpunished killing and beating after unpunished killing and beating, everyone has a breaking point. To be honest, I'm in awe of the restraint that black America has shown this year. But there are just so many guns in America, and so many temporarily or clinically unstable people going through hard times, and so many soft targets, that an incident was bound to happen unless the gov't and law enforcement made a serious effort to empathize, be contrite, communicate honestly, and reform (which they didn't).

This is the first time a NYPD cop has been killed on duty since 2011, which is pretty amazing considering they have a staff of 49K (not sure how many of those are beat cops). I think the # of civilian killings the NYPD has committed over that time span is far greater (at least 19). There will be national coverage, life insurance payouts, and full dress funerals for the slain officers. Far less respect was given to the victims of NYPD violence. It's obviously wrong to kill cops, but America mourns deaths differently and values life differently, which is also wrong. It's wrong to keep your boot on the throats of people and expect them to just take it forever, like dogs. It's a tragedy for all sides. Look, being a cop can be a damn hard job. Being black in America can be a damn hard life too. I wish both sides could understand that and show compassion, to make things easier on each other instead of more and more negativity. Otherwise the cycle of revenge and distrust will just go on forever, with more innocents suffering along the way. Sadly, it's the same for most protracted conflicts like Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, etc. But if the Northern Ireland factions could forgive and achieve peace, it's possible elsewhere. But it has to start with the two sides giving a shit about each other's plight. 

---

This is a pretty sobering and effective analysis by The Economist on America's violent law enforcement practices. Actually the NYPD, LAPD, and police from larger cities are not the biggest problem (misconduct per capita is lower). They have made huge reforms since Rodney King, although they still have a way to go (Stop and Frisk, though it was recently suspended). It's the small police forces like Ferguson and Albuquerque that are the problem, where the officers are often far less diverse, less competent, having worse leadership, and under far less public/media scrutiny.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21636044-americas-police-kill-too-many-people-some-forces-are-showing-how-smarter-less?fsrc=scn/fb/ed/pe/DontShoot

# of killings by cops last year in Japan, Germany, and the UK combined (pop. ~270MM): 8

# in the US (pop. ~316MM): 458

---

I am not totally surprised, but pretty dismayed by some reactions to the NYPD slayings:

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/220614-wake-two-slain-nypd-officers-people-take-twitter-show-disdain-al-sharpton/
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/220680-tweet-proves-divide-nypd-mayor-reached-crisis-level-two-cops-die/

Some major sources, like police unions and former NY governor Pataki, are literally blaming Mayor DeBlasio and Al Sharpton for Brinsley's attack on the 2 officers ("Blood is on your hands" - pretty disrespectful stuff). Probably the NYPD have marked DeBlasio as an enemy, and will do what they can to unseat him. While I haven't been following every single statement DeBlasio and Sharpton have made on police violence, I am fairly sure that they did not say anything remotely resembling race-baiting and a call for revenge. And in all of Brinsley's social media posts, I don't believe he mentioned that his actions were motivated by a public figure. But I suppose if you don't declare that you support everything the cops do 100%, and they are always in the right, then you are "anti-cop". That is how Tel Aviv and AIPAC respond to any sort of criticism of Israeli actions and policies (no matter how reasonable and fact-driven). If you're not fully supportive, then you're a vile anti-Semite. There's no place for that rubbish in intelligent conversation.

I suppose that some people want a simple, clear explanation for traumatic events that disturb them. Muslims hate us for our freedom, Marilyn Manson caused Columbine, etc. But that approach is often too reductive, inaccurate, and unhelpful. People are understandably upset and what to focus their anger on someone. But to irresponsibly blame public figures, whose only sins were to show some compassion for the families of police violence and dare to suggest a review of police policies, is not that different from Brinsley lashing out at 2 random beat cops over the Garner and Brown cases. And heaven forbid, but what if an angry, disturbed ex-cop decides to take a shot at DeBlasio or Sharpton over this uproar? Would we be justified to blame the people who called out DeBlasio and Sharpton for inciting violence against them?

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. 

Bin Laden's death

Vengeance is not justice, but it is often a shallow substitute.

Not to be a killjoy (but be honest, you were expecting this), but I would have preferred America to have a more tempered response to the Bin Laden news. All the flag-waving, gloating, and "God bless America" celebration, while somewhat justified in a long war with few significant victories for the US, won't really help us secure a better future. Especially the religious terminology from Palin and others only serves to complicate reconciliation (and regardless of what the zealots say, most terrorists or extremists can still be bargained with under the right circumstances - see the Sunni Awakening and "nice" Qaddafi). When it's a religious war, it's winner-take-all, which has been the wet dream of psychopathic warmongers for centuries. Both sides think god is on their side, and will help them smite their enemy, yet claim that they worship a prophet of peace? Huckabee said "Welcome to hell, Bin Laden." I thought it was "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and "Love your enemies"? And that man used to be a Baptist minister.

That's why I wish during his speech last night, Obama would have called on Americans to practice restraint, use this occasion to reflect and remember the victims of war (on all sides), and think about what each of us can do to promote peace and security in our neighborhoods and abroad. I wish he would have refrained from the "G.B.A." cliche. Otherwise it's quite grotesque to see the richest nation with the most powerful (and expensive) military jubilantly celebrating one man's death, especially a man weakened by disease who poses very little direct threat to us, and who was hiding out in broad daylight while we were combing vast swaths of rugged terrain for him for years (and killing many of the wrong people during our hunting efforts). Sadly, it reminds me of the Munchkins celebrating Dorothy's house falling on the Wicked Witch, when the Witch's meaner sister was still out there. As one KQED commentator said this morning, "It's not a football game."

The identities of SEAL Team 6 and the intel personnel responsible for the actual attack may never be known (unless they blow their cover, appear on Oprah, and write tell-all books), so they are happy just to accomplish their mission, and don't need the praise of politicians looking for a sound bite as we head towards election season. I am sure it was the biggest rush of their lives to conduct this historic raid, but of course they were doing it out of love for country. I bet the 9/11 hijackers felt similar pride for their special mission. I'm not saying that our troops are on the same level as terrorists, but it's so funny how everything in the world seems to have its mirror, while politicians and ideologues only see black and white. Well one thing is for sure, this mission will definitely be re-created in the next installment of XBox Call of Duty.

So where do we go from here? There are a lot of unanswered questions. The "original" Al Qaeda, Af-Pak-based and led by Bin Laden, was mostly irrelevant since 2003, and bigger concerns exist from other terror networks like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (supposedly the people behind the underpants and Time Square bombers), radicalism among Muslim youth in Europe, and of course Iranian nuclear research. Then there's all the political upheaval in many Arab nations, and how those events play out could really reshape the security landscape for us. Also, why was O.B.L. permitted to live in a heavily guarded compound in a nice military suburb in our ally Pakistan? It's pretty clear that this wasn't a joint operation with the Pakistanis, because their military-intel establishment is so full of leaks that someone would have surely tipped off Bin Laden. Osama's people built that custom compound with high walls and barbed wire, had couriers coming in and out every day, and even burnt their trash, and no one hunting Bin Laden noticed until this spring?

Also, why the hasty burial-at-sea? While I doubt that even our gov't would dare to falsify Osama's death, the swift handling raises some eyebrows and opens the door for conspiracy theories. Why not return the remains to the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia? The KQED guest said that the US may want to avoid having Osama's corpse on display somewhere for veneration and inspiration, so they took this course of action. Lastly, why didn't we try harder to capture Osama? He was supposedly killed by a "double-tap" to the side of the head. Does that mean it was an up-close execution? Isn't Osama more useful to us alive? Even if he won't give up intel (even under torture), some questioning could probably be useful - and isn't he supposed to stand trial for the embassy bombings and 9/11? Or are we worried about what he might say on the stand? Not to incite conspiracy again, but it is peculiar. I know that no captive is worth losing soldiers over, so if the SEALs didn't feel they could capture O.B.L. safely, better to shoot to kill?

It's pretty clear that justice has NOT been done over 9/11, even with Osama dead. Congress is still dragging its feet over compensation for sickened first responders. The wars we launched in response to 9/11 created a bunch of new injustices and problems. The root causes of terrorism that partly inspired Osama are still mostly intact: Crusader-like US military presence in the Middle East, Western support of corrupt oil regimes and Israeli aggression, vast wealth and human rights inequalities, abuse of Muslim immigrants, and other issues that can be seen as insults to Islam. I know Muslims have done plenty of horrible things to each other and us since 9/11 too, so clearly the case is not closed. Finally, let's remember that all the terrible damage done to the US and our interests on 9/11 pales in comparison to the amazing losses we incurred during the recent financial crisis. That "attack" was perpetrated by Western greedy bankers, ignorant investors/borrowers, corrupt politicians, and lax regulators. That wasn't Al Qaeda at all, it was us. So who is the bigger enemy that we should fear and fight?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110502/ts_nm/us_binladen_compound
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden_the_raid
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/the-secret-team-that-killed-bin-laden;_ylt=AtJwovoSU36wQK1iPsoahRxH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNsMXZucW9jBGFzc2V0A3libG9nX2V4Y2x1c2l2ZS8yMDExMDUwMi90aGUtc2VjcmV0LXRlYW0tdGhhdC1raWxsZWQtYmluLWxhZGVuBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3RoZXNlY3JldHRlYQ--
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden;_ylt=Ai99lNU7AeFlZp8jNWRL9hJH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTJmNmMybWFyBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNTAyL3VzX2Jpbl9sYWRlbgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNhcHNvdXJjZXNkbmE-
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201105020900

Less robust donor response to the Pakistan flood disaster

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38687569/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129293203

Some news sources were observing that the global response to the Pakistan flood is weaker than with the Haiti quake or Indian Ocean tsunami of recent past, even though the current Pakistan disaster is larger and affecting more people in a more strategically important nation. Over 10M have become displaced, and thousands have died (1,500 documented deaths, but the actual number is probably over 10X higher). Within 2 weeks, international donors pledged over $1B for tiny Haiti, but so far Pakistan has only received a $460M pledge from the UN (that hasn't amassed the funds yet), with $50-150M or so coming from the US. Of course the US gives a lot of aid to Pakistan in many forms, and the Obama/Bush admins have tried to boost social and humanitarian aid in order to improve relations and combat extremism (currently to the tune of $7.5B over 5 years). Maybe Washington sees this "opportunity" as a way to score goodwill points with Pakistanis and Muslims after years of bad relations (as was the case with tsunami relief). Plus the more gratitude ordinary Pakistanis have for the US, and the more our aid helps boost their quality of life, the more stable Pakistan and Afghanistan will be, and the safer we will be from Islamic terrorism and loose nukes. So really it's a win-win for all nations, but if the perception among Pakistanis is that the West doesn't care, or is withholding aid as "punishment" for their lack of cooperation in the war on terror (even though Pakistan has suffered greatly from our war), they may come to support us even less.

Some possible explanations for the less robust response to the tragedy:

1) Donor fatigue: more miserable dark-skinned people needing Western assistance is always a bummer.
2) Timing: Haiti and the tsunami both occurred during winter holidays, so maybe there was more good will in our hearts? Pakistan is in August, when Westerners are on holiday, not paying attention to hard news, or getting ready for back-to-school.
3) Location: apparently the flooding (the size of Lebanon) was so bad that it wiped out access to the worst-hit areas, and more may be coming. Only helicopters can get in, which makes it hard for government officials and journalists to document the tragedy and broadcast powerful images to our screens.
4) Politics: Pakistan is associated with terrorism and corruption, especially after the Wikileaks documents release. Maybe this causes us to feel less compassion, even though the victims of the flooding have never harmed and do not want to harm America and our efforts in Afghanistan. They may not love us, but they are not all Taliban sympathizers. However, if the international community and Pakistani government fail to provide even minimal aid to the desperate victims, Islamic groups will step in and fill the void (whether out of charity or for political gains), like in Palestine. Or maybe foreign donors feel like their aid would be wasted on graft or seized by militants, as was the case in Somalia.
5) Global warming denial: like Katrina, African droughts, and Southwest wildfires in the last decade, the Pakistan flood's unprecedented size may lead one to implicate climate change in the disaster. If so, it's damning for Westerners, because the least polluting poor people in equatorial nations tend to suffer the most from global warming, while the human component is mostly due to G20 economies and lifestyles. So the least responsible suffer most. If we don't give generously, to address a problem that may be of our creation, then that is pretty heartless. So maybe it's better to ignore it and be in denial than accept the guilt.
5) Islamophobia: no media sources are willing to acknowledge it, and it's somewhat related to point 4. But look at the Ground Zero mosque debate. Many European nations and the US have a negative impression of Pakistani Muslims, especially after the recent Times Square terror attempt. Yes it's true that we helped Muslim Indonesia a lot after the tsunami, but US-Muslim relations may have been a little warmer then, and Indonesians are the "good Muslims" in our book. Maybe we blame our struggles in Afghanistan on Pakistan (deserved or not), so we feel less about their current plight. This is ridiculous of course, because as I've said Pakistan has sacrificed and suffered for the war on terror much more than most Americans. It's not the people's fault that the ISI is working with the Afghan Taliban.

Christian militias versus Muslim terrorists in the media

This is pretty scary, actually. Maybe you heard about the FBI raid on a well-armed fundamentalist Christian anti-government militia named Hutaree in the Midwest. They're not the ones I'm scared of (well, maybe a little), but look at the CNN/AP coverage below. Out of over 2,000 words of journalism, not ONCE was the word "terrorism" used to describe their plans (or "terrorist" to describe their members). They hate the government and law enforcement, so they planned to murder a policeman in April, then plant bombs on the funeral procession route to kill more mourning cops and their families to "demoralize" US law enforcement. They have plenty of electronic data for motive. The Feds seized explosives components and firearms too. How much more do you need for a terrorism conviction? This is more open-and-shut than the 9/11 bombers! (oops, 8.5 years on and we're still waiting for a conviction there, and even a trial date actually)

Yet they never said the T-word. Why is that? On the other hand you have the Najibullah Zazi case (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/z/najibullah_zazi/index.html?inline=nyt-per), which freaked everyone out and validated Homeland Security's efforts to keep us safe and intercept would-be attackers. This guy was an airport driver who went to Pakistan allegedly for terror training, and was supposed to blow up some target in NYC to avenge Afghan civilian deaths. They have no problem calling him and his associates terrorists with less evidence. He bought up a bunch of scalp developer, whatever that is (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/10/01/buy-beauty-products-you-might-be-a-terrorism-suspect/).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100329/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1361_8
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100330/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/29/hutaree.militia.plans/index.html

Taleban video of girl getting beaten in Pakistan

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6030741.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7907070.stm
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU200902129412&lang=e
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102821443

Maybe you've heard the buzz surrounding a cell video of a teen Pakistani female getting flogged in public for allegedly going out in public with a male who was not her husband. She is being lightly held down by 2 men, and whipped on the buttocks with a small rope by a skinny, bearded man (maybe a cleric or tribal elder?). Dozens of onlookers are nearby as she pleads for mercy. In the end, she gets to her feet (on her own power), and is led away by a man, maybe her husband. The video was purportedly filmed in Swat Valley, a tribal region notorious for Taleban rule, some violence, and lack of central government influence. Over 1,200 people have died there since anti-government fighting intensified in 2007, at the hands of the Taleban, Pakistani Army, or US Air Force. Over 100,000 poor, uneducated civilians (people overlooked by their gov't since the founding of Pakistan) have been displaced as well. Maybe some even went to fight in Afghanistan or India, maybe not. But is it all worth it for 15,000 army troops to hunt down an estimated 3,000 militants there (out of a population of 1.5M)? Amnesty International says yes, because the Taleban have closed down over 170 schools (mostly girls' schools) and committed numerous human rights violations. But at what cost do we want to de-Talebanize Pakistan's tribal belt?

In fact, currently Pakistan has more or less agreed to a recent truce with the Swat Taleban, which hinged on whether President Zadari can authorize some amount of Shari'a as official law there. You might think that the Taleban want this in order to impose 12th Century society on the people there, and it may be partially the case. But actually their main objective is to create rapid Islamic courts in those communities to expedite their form of justice, since they are pretty much cut off from mainstream Pakistan and the legal system works at a snail's pace for them, if at all. This push for Shari'a is nothing new either, and even Benazir Bhutto's regime in the 1990s agreed to it in a lesser extent. It's just taken that damn long for the innefective government to do anything.

Getting back to the beating video... it made such waves among the secular Pakistanis that the Supreme Court (and the newly reinstated Chief Justice) may investigate. Thousands of Pakistanis took to the streets to protest the Taleban. Clearly the video content was offensive, but maybe we should get real here a second. Similar material is posted on YouTube daily by Westerners who supposedly are educated, free, peaceful, and respect human/women's rights. Nurses organize fights among handicapped patients, high school girls brawl with each other, and there have been 4 mass shootings in as many weeks. That Pakistani girl, absolutely not a criminal by our standards, did something that she knew to be forbidden and was publicly beaten/humiliated for it. I am not condoning it, but the lashing was tame and will not leave permanent damage, as far as I can tell. Women are getting killed in other Islamic nations for marital "misconduct" (our allies Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even at home in the US: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090216/NEWS-US-BRIDGESTV-MURDER/). So the outrage is a bit disproportional, yet I am sure that right-wing media will relish another opportunity for Islam-bashing.

In the rural, poor, forgotten areas of our country (America's Swat), women and children are getting abused every day. If mighty, just America cannot prevent those injustices, how can dysfunctional Pakistan? Worldly, secular Pakistanis took to the streets to support that poor girl, but where was their outrage when their army's shells or US bombs were slaughtering their innocent countrymen in the mountains? Is it because those victims were ignorant Muslims, so they don't count? And Defense Sec. Gates just announced that he is recommending to Congress to change the Pentagon budget to spend more on drones and less on missile defense. Probably a more efficient use of resources, and those drones may help our fights in the Middle East - but they will surely kill innocents and promote the cowardly/uncaring image of the US military to the hearts and minds that we are supposedly attempting to win over. So how can we call them barbarians for lightly flogging a girl, when we and our Pakistani allies are displacing whole villages and killing children?

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2008/09/200898164428829256.html

Some skeptics suggest that the cell video may have even been staged, or the timing/distribution of it meant to persuade Pakistanis to reject the peace deal with the Swat Taleban. The West has already expressed much displeasure over the peace accord. We worry that if you give the Taleban an inch, they will take over that fragile nuclear nation. But history shows it's not the case. Islamists won recent elections in Palestine, Lebanon, Nigeria, and Iraq, and apart from the side-effects of war, none of those nations became disseminators of religious extremism. In fact it was the opposite for Nigeria (see Newsweek article at end). Congress is criticizing Obama's plan to support Pakistan (in order to help stabilize Afghanistan) because it doesn't go far enough to kick them in the pants so they take care of their "Islamist problem". But as we know from countless Cold War examples, it's risky to force others to fight our fights, or micromanage them to fight the way we want them to. Furthermore, it's folly to think that we can totally get rid of religious extremism, just as it's folly for Al Qaeda to think it could ever topple the West and establish a global caliphate. Ideology is usually folly, but it is a part of humanity, and it is futile for one ideology to attempt to exterminate another. Sure in a context vacuum it would be great if we could just magically crack down on extremist militants and human rights abusers with the stroke of a pen. But people who outlaw music and beat their wives for talking to another man are not our enemy like Osama is.

Unbiased religious freedom is a core American value, supposedly. As we all know, people have killed and died for religion for millennia, and will continue to do so. If an outside force tries to repress or take away a people's faith, no matter how "backwards" or "dangerous" that faith may seem to us, there will be violent repercussions. Sometimes the cost is worth it, other times it's not, especially when "victory" is so vague and maybe impossible. In that sense, the Obama White House (and our society) have not yet gotten past the intellectual ball and chain of Bush's War on Terror ideology. Look what happened to Egypt's Sadat when he tried to crack down on the Islamic Brotherhood (a peaceful political rival), maybe at the behest of the West. Dictator-general Musharraf, with carte-blanche Bush support, couldn't defeat the Pakistani extremists, so I doubt his corrupt, squabbling, civilian successors will either. It's like the Jenga game. You need to make small, delicate changes slowly, or the whole structure comes crashing down. The more you rush, the harder it gets. And the more you take, the harder it gets to take more. So we should tread with real caution. But of course US politicians work on the election cycle, and may not have the cultural sensitivity and patience for a drawn-out effort to reduce Taleban influence promoting global Jihad. They want a quick-fix, like de-Ba'athification - and we know how that turned out.

We must distinguish between violent Islam (that isn't even religious actually, but uses Islam as a pretense and motivation for bloodshed) and the fundamentalist Islam that may repulse our sensibilities, but probably won't cause much geopolitical instability. At least no more than similar Western religious extremism like Hasidic Judaism, Koresh-style cult Christianity, and Scientology. There is a cultural class struggle that underlies this religious struggle though. Most nations that have Islamist insurgency problems are failed states and/or ruled by rich, corrupt dictators. These dictators and their affiliates want to hold onto power at all costs, so of course they oppose any grassroots Islamic challenge, and will leverage petrodollars or become puppets of the West if it helps their cause. It's no coincidence that many terrorists are Western-educated and from privileged backgrounds, just like the dictators they fight against. They've seen the "free world" creeping in, and the difference is they prefer the fundamentalist Muslim alternative instead of embracing/accepting the West. I'm not judging what is wrong or right, but just stating a possible explanation. As one Pakistani said on NPR, in his view the Taleban are the "new Bolsheviks", trying to help the poor and restore some moral decency from the decadent, phony-Muslim elites. Of course morality and righteousness are very subjective. But people are not that gullible - Pashtuns support gangsters and despots in the Taleban because their own government (and the West by extension) has an even worse track record with them. Same goes with Palestinians and Hamas/Fatah. But that doesn't make them terrorists or accessories to terrorism. In fact they're pragmatists, and the Islamic extremism just tags along as negative baggage. They believe in food for their families; not 40 virgins in a martyr's paradise.

It's confusing when we condemn some fundamentalism but tolerate others. It's hypocritical when we commit human rights abuses but seek to punish Muslims who do the same - and only the Muslims in unfriendly regimes (i.e. China and Saudi get a pass but Sudan and Iran do not). Of course there are varying degrees of criminality, but it's better if we can stay above the fray. And Obama's message that America is not at war with Islam gets droned out by the furor over our air strikes and such.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/187093

Few people in the [Swat] valley would say that the current truce is their preferred outcome. In the recent election, they voted for a secular party. But if the secularists produce chaos and corruption, people settle for order.... The Pakistani government is hoping that this agreement will isolate the jihadists and win the public back to its side. This may not work, but at least it represents an effort to divide the camps of the Islamists between those who are violent and those who are merely extreme... The Predator strikes have convinced much of the local population that it's under attack from America and produced a nationalist backlash. A few Qaeda operatives die, but public support for the battle against extremism drops in the vital Pashtun areas of Pakistan. Is this a good exchange?
-F Zakaria, Newsweek

Obama, Afghanistan, and Pakistan

Correction from the last email: Gen. Petraeus replaced Gen. Casey, not Franks (who retired after leading the 2003 invasion of Iraq but never finding the slam-dunk WMDs).

AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95783493
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7616005.stm
http://www.newsweek.com/id/163349

"We have a sound bite about a representative Afghanistan at peace with itself and its neighbors," says [retired Marine and defense analyst Nate] Fick. "But we don't have a defined strategic objective."

Fick says there's no agreement among allies, even within the American government, about the road ahead. Is this all just to defeat insurgents or to build a new country? Those efforts, some say, could take 25 years.

"If this is a counterinsurgency effort, maybe we shouldn't be sending more brigades, maybe we should be withdrawing brigades," says Fick. "If this is a holistic state-building effort, then the number is not two or three [brigades], maybe it's much higher than that. Certainly tens of thousands of troops, if not over 100,000 troops," he says. -NPR
Harsh and remote Afghanistan is one of the five poorest nations on Earth, and would be a monumental nation-building effort even with total calm on the streets and no historical baggage. In many ways, Afghanistan poses a much larger challenge than Iraq, and may not be anything more than a failed state now even if we didn't "take our eyes off the ball" with Iraq. More US troops have died there this year than in Iraq, for the first time in the War on Terror. Insurgent bombings are getting more sophisticated, and attacks are up 40%. Militants raided a jail and sprung 886 of their comrades in broad daylight. During the worst times, NATO troops died at a 30/month and civilians at 300/month. A Mideast commentator half joked that corrupt, ineffective President Karzai's political control is limited to downtown Kabul, and only during the daytime. As typical military "solution" to counter this slide, NATO has increased bombing missions three-fold, sometimes killing innocents and generating anger from Afghans and foreign humanitarian groups (many of whom have had to abandon their vital projects in Afghanistan due to unsafe working conditions).

With an infusion of about 10,000 more US soldiers next year, the combined UN ISAF force and Afghan military will total about 250,000. But unfortunately, that may not be enough. Afghanistan is larger than Iraq with more difficult terrain and poorer infrastructure. Their population is also larger (32M), and Gen. Petraeus' counter-terrorism manual prescribes a fighting force of 400,000 to properly secure such a population - which is obviously unfeasible. Some in the Pentagon suggest bribing and arming the tribes could help, as Petraeus did with the Anbar Sunnis, but they fear it will contribute to warlord-ism (a cultural blight and historical trend that still affects them). But they do want them to be more involved and proactive with security and community building, in order to accomplish things that our bombs can't.

While it is clear that an influx of skilled foreign fighters has contributed to the strengthened insurgency and NATO losses, their origins are not fully known. Some are coming from Pakistan obviously, but Afghanistan's border is vast and porous on all sides. It's frankly impossible to control, and Alexander the Great, the Khans, British, and Soviets have tried unsuccessfully. Maybe at best we can fly daily patrols like the no-fly zone in Iraq during the 1990s, or mine the border (but that is politically toxic and causes much collateral damage). Some Pakistanis say the contributions from their nation have been exaggerated by Americans for political scapegoating, and in fact it is the destabilizing NATO war in Afghanistan that is spilling over and exacerbating problems in Pakistan. Yes they have had to deal with religious fundamentalism and lawlessness in the Pashtun tribal regions for decades, but mostly the threat was contained and their urban centers weren't getting bombed. But only after 2001 has there been overt confrontation between anti-government/anti-Western militants and the Pakistani military (at the behest of the US, putting pressure on Gen. Pervez Musharraf to take the gloves off), which has probably done more harm than good. Islamabad is screwed either way. When they launch offensives into the tribal zones, many die on both sides and there is public disapproval. And when insurgents strike back by viciously bombing security forces or even civilian targets, many Pakistanis blame their government and the US for provoking the militants.

----------

"Essentially, we are starting a fight that we can't finish," [former Pakistan CIA station chief Bob] Grenier says. "Because we are generating far more radicalism, we are motivating more people to fight against us and to fight against the Pakistani government." -NPR

So another concern is Obama's ignorance and shaky dialog on the subject of Pakistan. I know the least about Pakistan too, versus the other nations mentioned in the last email, which probably contributes to my heightened fear of the security situation there. If you don't understand it, then how can you solve it? Maybe you just rely on your advisers at your own risk (but we should remember that there are some Karl Roves and ideologues on the Dem side too). I believe that Pakistan is a major front in the War on Terror, yet on Obama's foreign policy page of his website, there is not a single mention of Pakistan anywhere. I don't expect Obama-Biden to "fix" Pakistan/Afghanistan or even make it a top priority, but at least don't make it worse or continue Bush's counter-productive meddling. The situation is fraught with challenges and experts are exasperated as well. There are some good ideas circulating, and most people agree that we need to devote more resources (though our pocketbook is already strained from Iraq and Wall Street). But even so it's worrisome that the fragile and discordant UN/NATO/Afghan coalition may not execute them to meaningful success.

A positive step was a Biden-Lugar bill that proposed $7.5B over 5 years in development aid for Pakistan, with the caveat that their military does not interfere with civilian governance (call it the "democracy-for-food bill"). This safeguard is not paranoid either, because actually the danger of another military coup is much more likely, and almost as scary, as an Islamist takeover. After all, that's what got Musharraf into power. The Pakistani military establishment is like their fourth estate, and although they've lost some public support recently and had a purging of their security services, they are still a vital component of that nation's identity. Whether patriotic or power-hungry, I am sure the brass would want to step in should the struggling democracy be unable to improve conditions.

We know that Pakistan, the world's second-largest Muslim nation, has vacillated from civilian to military rule and back again during its tumultuous 61-year history after the British left. They lost Bangladesh to succession and have somewhat been at war with India for decades over the disputed Kashmir region, so obviously nationalism, survival, and territory are always on their minds. Dictator Musharraf, a top Bush ally in the War on Terror, took power in a coup in the 1999 and was recently impeached. Not only did his violations of the constitution and sacking of judges do him in, but he failed to fully deliver on promises of modernizing the economy and increasing security. The economy did grow at 6% under Musharraf, which was probably the main reason he lasted this long. Sensing the inevitable, the US called for Musharraf to respect democracy, and threw their hat behind former corruption exile but populist democratic hero Benazir Bhutto. She talked tough about terrorism, made a triumphant return to her homeland amidst death threats, but a final attack did her in. Musharraf's party got the boot in recent parliamentary elections, so now a fragile coalition government has been struck between Bhutto's also corrupt husband, President Zadari (a political novice who also suffers from dementia and PTSD, I'm not even kidding), and Prime Minister Sharif, the man Musharraf unseated and banished.

As if this shaky situation wasn't already a recipe from problems, Pakistan has been terribly affected by the global economic slow-down, with 12%+ inflation and power shortages at near record highs (making their rupee hit an all-time low vs. the dollar). Credit raters have skewered them, and foreign investors are withdrawing their money like it was going out of style. Of course another major reason for their loss of business is the violence. After Musharraf laid siege to the Red Mosque in Islamabad last year, anti-government Islamist insurgent activity ballooned. Modern, educated Pakistanis may not approve of the insurgents' brutal tactics and strict interpretations of Islam, but they distrust or loathe their government even more. They don't want their leaders and military to be puppets of the West and their controversial War on Terror, which in their part of the world resembles a war against Islam for oil. Recently there was an attempt on Zadari's life, and a massive truck bomb destroyed the Marriott hotel in the capital. Over 4,000 Pakistanis have died from fighting this year.

And to make matters worse, the US has intensified its covert military operations within Pakistan. I know our special forces have probably conducted habitual cross-border activities in the tribal areas since 2002 (probably with tacit consent from Islamabad), but frustrated from ISAF's recent setbacks in Afghanistan, our attacks are now more brazen. Predator drones launch missile strikes on Pakistani soil weekly, sometimes killing civilians. And soon the more heavily-armed Reaper drone from Iraq will see action in this theater. The US initially denied it, but Pakistan tracked US helicopters entering Pakistan and unloading commandos who attacked a village, killing some high-value targets but also up to 20 innocents. And more recently, a Pakistani outpost and US gunships exchanged fire at the border but no one was hurt (are we still allies?).

The Pakistani people are outraged by our unapologetic incursions into their country, which makes it harder and harder for the government to justify it's strong allegiance to Washington and targeting of insurgents, who are fellow Muslims and Pakistanis. Trying to deflect blame, pro-American Zadari condemned our actions and called an emergency meeting of his parliament to discuss. Recent negotiations between our two nations over the war have gone nowhere. Though some skeptics believe that America forced Pakistan's hand, stepping up cross-border operations recently to prevent the Zadari government from signing new deals with the tribes. Well, we've done worse in the past.

Like our partnership with Israel, it boils down to incongruent security priorities. Obama criticized Musharraf for signing treaties with the Taleban, but what choice did he have? Unlike us, Pakistan's national objective is not to wipe out Al Qaeda types, but to contain them. Musharraf has broken promises to step down as president and hold elections, so clearly his top goal was just to retain power. Why would he risk his throne and commit political suicide by declaring war on the tribal areas? Pakistan's tribal belt will never come under Islamabad's authority no matter what, but that doesn't mean we have to regard it as the epicenter of a terrorist caliphate that threatens all of Western civilization. While fundamentalists do pose some real problems, cracking down on them may be more costly than tolerating them in a marginal sense. When they are confined to the mountains or maybe going to Afghanistan to fight, they are not really Pakistan's problem anymore. But our fighting in Afghanistan is politically destabilizing and increases anti-Americanism, which does become Pakistan's problem as neighbor and ally. So we're not letting them off the hook that easily. If at first they don't go along with us, American persuasion means leaving the other side no choice.

I know the border is indistinct and weakly respected out there, and war can be very confusing, but we should know better. A similar thing happened during the Vietnam War. The communist North was funneling arms and troops through neutral Cambodia to the conflict zones in the South. Nixon of course concluded that Cambodia was part of the problem, and ordered covert bombing to disrupt communist supply lines. Whether it worked is unclear (America still lost), but the attacks did displace and kill 100,000s of Khmers (also from starvation due to crop destruction) and totally destabilize Cambodia, allowing the insurgent Khmer Rouge to gain more popular support and enact a reign of terror.

Probably our attacks won't cause Al Qaeda extremists to take over Pakistan and launch nukes (the typical Western doomsday scenario). But a more likely, and equally problematic, result could be the military establishment sacking the democratic government, claiming that they will stand up to America and defend Pakistani sovereignty where the cowardly bureaucrats have failed. The military has lost prestige due to Musharraf and the unpopular conflict with insurgents, but they could make their case if the US continues to inadvertently undermine that fragile democracy, and Zadari's government is unable to stop Pakistan's deteriorating economy and security. With Islamist and American bombs going off all around them, and their homes without food/power, the rattled people might turn to the generals as last resort. This time, lawyer protests won't be able to save their "experiment in democracy". Like Myanmar, political moderates and suffering people can't stand up to a powerful junta.

Their nukes would still be relatively secure, but we would set back democratic reforms in the region and turn a key ally into a more isolated, nationalistic, anti-American state (complicating matters for vital neighbors like India too). Even if their democracy is able to persist, at best we will lose much goodwill and cooperation - what little we have left. That would make the War on Terror much harder to maintain, bringing Pakistan closer to rivals like China, and giving a boost to our enemies in Central Asia. Bottom line, it's a bigger problem to lose Pakistan than tolerate some Taleban and Al Qaeda causing problems in Afghanistan but mostly confined to the mountains. Let's remember the consequences of our disrespect: Sudan had Osama in the 1990s, but feeling snubbed by the Clinton administration, they let him go. We have so few friends left in the Muslim world, let's not lose another (that also happens to have nukes).

Millions of Pakistanis live under or among warlords, terrorists, and the Taleban in the ethnic Pashtun Northwest tribal areas (rugged, remote, and about the size of New Jersey) because they have no alternative - that is their ancestral homeland and there is little to no government presence there. Some actually respect the Taleban for meeting basic community needs and enforcing Sharia law. And like the Randy Weaver-type independent survivalists in rural America, they don't consider themselves under Islamabad's rule and form their own militias - sometimes in opposition to the Taleban, but more often against the Pakistani military. I know Pakistan has stolen or pissed away billions in aid money, but we have to find a way to get more basic services to, and a nonthreatening federal presence in, the "ungoverned areas". Maybe they don't want or have to live like Ozzie and Harriet, but at least they should feel connected to their fellow Pakistanis and aware of their unique role in regional affairs. The Taleban can't be the only show in town; they at least deserve an alternative to isolation.

Americans may never understand tribalism and sectarian societies, because our way of life is so different. Autocratic leaders like Musharraf have to rule by force and delicately balance competing factions, constantly wary of coups and assassins. It's even harder for a democratically elected coalition government. So it's not as simple as some politicians claim. It's not like Pakistan's generals are relaxing by the pool, thumbing their nose at America, while Osama is strolling around with impunity. Muslim nations understand the Islamic terrorist threat and how to address it more than we ever will. So if they're not hitting Al Qaeda as hard as we would like, there is good reason for it. It's imperialistic arrogance for us to always assume that we know how to run their country better. Maybe we can sit down with them and discuss how we can help each other get more of what we want, but going after Qaeda "for them", on their soil, is the wrong move.

While it is true that some anti-Western or insurgent-sympathetic elements of the Pakistani security forces are working against us to help the Islamists, no ally is perfect. Remember that we came to them for help, not the other way around. We get what we pay for. Maybe Pakistan isn't a very trustworthy partner in the War on Terror, so we should meter our expectations, exposure, and at least not turn their populace against us. Though let's remember that killing Osama is not the solution to all our problems, especially if doing so creates five more Osamas to fill the void. We have foolishly made Osama the convenient "face" of terrorism to absorb all our fear/hatred, but the foe we fight is so dangerous and elusive precisely because he has no face, or could be any face. Killing a top leader does some damage, but the decentralized, semi-autonomous network of worldwide terror cells will continue their plotting and attacking. And although we've made it much harder for terrorists to wire money, after 7 years they also don't seem to be running out of funding and arms over there (opium sales and smuggling, plus a glut of Cold War era weaponry circulating unchecked in Central Asia).

America's attacks within Pakistan provide little strategic gain, at the huge costs of enraging the population and making violent extremism a more attractive response. Have we learned nothing from our other war? The mighty US military couldn't stamp out Al Qaeda in Iraq, until a few Sunni sheikhs finally got fed up with Qaeda's brutality and allied themselves with us (also for leverage against the Shia of course). All the bombing in the world won't stop the Taleban as long as the Pakistanis support or tolerate them, and in fact our attacks make it much harder for the Pakistani government to contain insurgents and persuade people to reject them. Pakistan is a conservative religious society (and very much so in the tribal regions), so already they are predisposed to distrust the decadent, depraved West and side with fellow Muslims, maybe believing that their violent struggle to "defend the faith" is justified as Jihad. Though of course some moderate Pakistanis are appalled by the carnage from the city bombings and attacks on their military. But they hesitate to support a government that appears powerless to stop warmongering Americans from killing Pakistanis too. We have to give them a reason to side with us, but so far we've just done the opposite.

---------

Here was Obama's Pakistan Q&A from the second presidential debate:

Hamm: Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

Obama: Katie, it's a terrific question and we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn't finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.

So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.

They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They're stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that's why I think it's so important for us to reverse course, because that's the central front on terrorism.

They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that's where it will end. So part of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that's funding terrorism.

But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can't coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.

What I've said is we're going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.
From that exchange, it's clear that Obama doesn't get it. Even if we didn't take our "eyes off the ball" with Iraq, I seriously doubt that we could have achieved "victory" in Afghanistan by now. Surely Iraq really hurt our cause, but it's not the catch-all blame-all that Obama tries to make it on the campaign trail. How will Obama exactly "put more pressure" on the Afghan government to get things done? In many ways, the Iraqi government is more functional, and Baghdad has had decades more experience in federal rule (albeit dictatorial).

I do agree that the drug trade has to be seriously addressed, and not like Plan Colombia. Maybe we should use our bombs on the poppy fields instead, but bombs alone won't fix it. We have to give the poor farmers a viable alternative, since opium yields them over 10X more profit than other crops. Plus the Taleban forces them to grow the poppies at gunpoint, so unless we can protect the rural population, we can't stop the drug trade.

We weren't "coddling" Musharraf. We coddle Karzai actually. We were bribing Musharraf for sure, but also putting tremendous heat on him to fight the War on Terror for us, even if he dragged his feet at times. We did tolerate his desecration of democracy, but we also got a lot chummier with India during the Bush years. Pakistan wanted a similar civilian nuclear deal, but of course we declined. Yet Obama seeks to continue Bush's unsound policy - pressure Pakistan to go after militants, even if it is offensive and destabilizing. Obama correctly concludes that we are an inflammatory presence in Iraq and our bad conduct is an affront to Muslim sensibilities, which attracts fighters of many backgrounds with many reasons to oppose us. Knowing that, he can't be a hypocrite on Pakistan and Afghanistan. While the current Afghan regime can't survive without Western support, maybe the less our presence is visible in Pakistan the better, at least until things cool down and Zadari earns more credibility. Cross-border raids, even to "take out Osama", don't help that cause. Unless our brutal counter-terrorism operations show direct and significant benefits to the Afghan and Pakistani people (so far not really), then no one will back us being there.

Maybe by now it is too late, as the Islamists have declared all-out war on the "traitor Pakistani government and its infidel US sponsor". Their fragile government is now hunkered down in Islamabad, prisoners in their own nation, like the Iraqi Green Zone. Is that progress? It's party out fault. We have forced Pakistan's hand to become more like us, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. We all raised the stakes by engaging in preemptive warfare, are all now locked in a fight for survival against the terrorists. That changes the nature of the game tremendously, and things could get uglier.

Obama's Middle East challenges

Now that the McCain campaign is on life support, it might behoove us to more seriously examine a President Obama's policies. While I mostly agree with his economic and domestic agendas, he is all over the place on foreign policy, even with seasoned Biden at his side (and just because he heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee doesn't mean he gets all foreign issues). But just so you don't get the wrong idea, I mailed in my ballot total with a vote for Obama. However, I think his supporters can and should also be his most scrutinizing critics. I guess it's tough love? He is a supporter of oversight and accountability, right? Cheerleading and celebrity worship haven't fixed a single problem in history.

It's disappointing that GOP propaganda and world events have made it exceedingly difficult for Democrats or others to promote progressive views on defense and foreign policy. They can't seem to emerge out of the "Dukakis in a tank" shadow, and the Bushies easily reduced a decorated veteran and multi-term Senator like Kerry into an unreliable weakling, strangely when compared to an AWOL National Guardsman who plunged America into 2 wars in 2 years. Of course Democrats haven't done a great job in combating the negative stereotypes against them in this area of government. But I believe that it's foolish for them to try to "out-tough" the GOP. I guess the average American voter does want a tough-talking war leader who will assure us of victory and strike fear in our enemies, but let's remember that there are good reasons why Ike became president while Patton didn't. It's just laughable when a pretty boy lawyer like John Edwards looks at the camera and tells Osama that he can "run but he can't hide".

Nothing is assured in this convoluted world of high-stakes geopolitics, and conditions change constantly. Yes the role of Commander in Chief can be a dirty job, and bombing and killing will be necessary for America to achieve some security objectives, but we should do so cautiously with cost-benefit well in mind. Some of Obama's arguments for pressing the issue in Pakistan are the same things he criticized Bush for the Iraq War: a go-it-alone mentality, consideration of local culture/history, containment vs. confrontation, and creating more terrorists than we neutralize. Killing Osama in a daring raid is counter-productive if our brutality and disrespect for an ally's sovereignty turns Pakistanis militantly against us, destabilizes their fragile coalition government, and allows Islamists to take more control of that nuclear nation.


As most world opinion, and now American opinion, has turned against our involvement in Iraq, I think people would prefer sensible, results-oriented diplomacy to war hero bravado. It's just plain truth that suffering in a communist jail 40 years ago won't make McCain any more able to improve stability in Iraq/Afghanistan or dissuade Iran from advancing its nuclear program. But Obama has also fallen into the GOP trap of oversimplifying very complex conflicts into us vs. them, good-and-evil. I guess on the campaign trail, it's impossible or undesirable for candidates to address the nuances of Muslim sectarianism or post-Soviet ethnic nationalism, and that's the voter's fault. But if we really want change and progress after the Bush years, we have to get a lot more serious, pragmatic, and sober with foreign policy, or horrors like Iraq and Darfur will multiply and intensify.

I really want to discuss Afghanistan-Pakistan since I'm learning a lot about it on the fly, and it seems like the most pressing hot spot now. NPR is airing a series on problems in those nations this week, and I'd like to hear it all before I put something together. So for now let me start with other Mideast conflict zones, and hopefully you won't be sick of me by next week when part 2 comes out.


ISRAEL-PALESTINE

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/05/1117964.aspx

We have already seen how Obama has changed his views on Israel-Palestine, and taken a much more pro-Israel approach (plus Biden said that there is "no greater friend" to Israel in the Senate than he). I know that Israel is our strategic ally and provides assistance to us in countering Iran and Islamists in the Middle East. There is plenty of justification for continuing our costly partnership with Israel, but also plenty against. Of course no one would get elected acknowledging Israeli military atrocities and questioning our disproportionate military and economic support for a capable, modern nation (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html). I don't expect that from Obama, but at least he doesn't have to be yet another out-of-touch Israel cheerleader in Washington (they have plenty already). In March of last year, Obama said that, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." That is a legitimate claim to make, with plenty of supporting evidence. The claim itself wasn't intended to cast blame on Israel, but of course AIPAC cried bloody murder and other Democrats felt compelled to criticize Obama's statement. He has since clarified that he meant the Palestinians were suffering because of their inept Hamas leaders in Gaza. No mention of the suffering caused by the US-backed civil war with Fatah, nor the Israeli blockade, expansionism, or military aggression that the UN has denounced as illegal, illegitimate, and in some cases, immoral. In fact, Obama/Biden's current approach to Israel-Palestine is 99% similar to George Bush's! 4 years of the same?

And some might argue that his stance is even more pro-Israel than Bush's, because some of his language suggests that he thinks Israel has sole claim to all of Jerusalem (despite the illegal annexation of Palestinian East Jerusalem since 1967), even though he should know that many Palestinians would rather die than accept such a peace proposal. He has called for preliminary, limited dialogs with pariah leaders like Ahmadinejad (which 4 former Secretaries of State believe to be a good move, though I'm sure the pro-Israel lobby will fight it), yet he wouldn't talk to the democratically and fairly elected Hamas government in Gaza? How does that make sense, and how does that represent hope and change we can believe in? If Obama is against anything and everything Bush-like, how can he seek to continue the failed Bush policy of cold-shoulder "diplomacy"? Even some Israeli leaders acknowledge that Hamas must be involved in peace talks and negotiations. We might not like them, but ignoring them is more costly than cautiously involving them (and some analysts argue that Israel has been a bigger impediment to peace in the last 4 years than the Hamas leadership in Gaza).

I know that Obama may unfortunately have more challenges than most presidential candidates in convincing pro-Israel Americans to support him (accusations of being Muslim, not much track record in government, etc.), but that doesn't mean he should sacrifice his better judgment and the legitimate needs and rights of Palestinians in the peace process and Near East security. If he wants America to be a beacon for liberty again, then he can't afford politics as usual here. Yet despite these concerns, Palestinians on the street are hopeful that a black US president, who understands racism and injustice from the victim's perspective, will do more for them than just the typical lip service. I hope he won't let them down. On his campaign website, Obama makes absolutely no mention of the Palestinian stituation, yet has a 3-page statement documenting his and Biden's staunch support for Israel and political record to prove it. That says a lot. Do presidential candidates issue official statements indicating their strong support for other prominent allies like the UK and Japan? Maybe an easy first step to "change the tone" in Washington is to tone down such unnecessary and overtly biased rhetoric, which doesn't help anyone in Israel or Palestine have a better, safer existence.

IRAN

While Israel is our comrade-in-arms, it may make for a more dangerous world if we adopt Israel's foreign policy priorities as our own. Which is a main purpose of the pro-Israel lobby in the US of course, to persuade Americans into taking actions beneficial to Israel, but not necessarily to America. We are allies, but one's survival does not depend on the other (and they need us a lot more than we need them). While Israel terribly botched its offensive into Lebanon a few years ago, its low-manpower, high-tech military is built primarily for defense (equipped with a nuclear deterrent also), and would decimate any would-be attackers in the region, Iran included. Clearly Iran is Israel's chief enemy and top security concern, and their nuclear research raises the stakes.

But not so for America, not by a long shot. Unless provoked, Iran poses little direct danger to us. They might talk tough, and Western hawks have capitalized on anti-Semitic, anti-Western rhetoric from Tehran, but really there are no signs whatsoever that they intend to attack us. Yes if we push them, they will logically push back (taking UK sailors hostage, imprisoning American scholars, arming Shia militias, etc.). But they don't have their finger on the proverbial trigger. Iran is a competitor for political influence in the Mideast, but not a direct security threat. Yes, it is possible that her proxies may cause major disruptions in neighboring states, but for now the Mahdi Army and other Shia militias have stood down in Iraq, and Hizbullah has struck a power-sharing deal in Lebanon, so violence has waned (relatively). Nearby pro-West Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia and Turkey are also no friends of Iran, but they know that open aggression will produce terrible backlash, especially with so much vital oil infrastructure for Iran to target, as well as a resurgent Shia minority in the Muslim world, emboldened by events during the Bush years to stand up to oppression. So they tolerate each other (or at least undermine each other covertly), which is a building block of peace I suppose.

But Israel cares not about the repercussions to regional political stability and the global oil trade if she or the US attacks Iran. To them, survival is everything, and Iran must be neutralized at all costs. But to America, even a slight disruption in oil exports from the Gulf due to conflict is much more damaging than even Tel Aviv getting razed. Iran could easily throw a wrench in our projects in Iraq/Afghanistan/Lebanon/Palestine as well, undoing years of progress (or struggle at least). So unfortunately, we have become so irresponsibly entangled in Middle East affairs that our fate is more tightly tied to Israel's, and our objectives more dependent on Iran being defeated. Conspiracy theorists would suggest that Israel desired and ordained this to happen, so here we are.

But regardless of how we got here, a big challenge of this decade is how to deal with Iran. We already know that McCain and most of the GOP have not only drank, but chugged, the Kool-Aid, and are dead-set on confronting Iran as overtly or more so than the Bushies. #2 nuclear power Russia recently invaded a neighbor and nuclear Pakistan is dangerously close to government collapse while battling Islamists, yet Iran (2 years away from a primitive bomb at best) is our top security concern? I am not sure if the Dems recognize the problem within the problem though. Clearly something has to be done, and we can't permit Iranian nuclear activities to go unchecked. But I wonder what an Obama/Biden administration would do about it. They are already the self-proclaimed champions of Israel, so if Israel wanted us to do something rash, or took unilateral actions that almost compel us to act, would Obama do it? So as to not appear weak to terrorists and the GOP, what steps would Obama take in order to "defend Israel"? Are all options on the table? Especially if Iran were baited into doing something stupid, and there was huge political pressure to respond with force like during the Cuban Missile Crisis (even though we know the consequences to be huge), could Mr. Cool resist the hysteria and calm the situation?

IRAQ

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/07/080707taco_talk_packer
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/7711 (a neocon viewpoint)

The politics of the issue is tricky, because acknowledging changed ideas in response to changed facts is considered a failing by the political class.

- G Packer, New Yorker

We've also seen how Obama was unable to coherently counter GOP attacks against him regarding his unwillingness to support the 2007 Surge, which turned out to be "successful" in their minds and much of America. McCain has even been able to attack Obama's patriotism and commitment to victory on this matter, because more failures in Iraq will be a vindication of his opposition to the Surge and validation to continue his plans for a fixed troops withdrawal timetable. So McCain might be insinuating that Obama wants to be "right" more than he wants to "win" in Iraq. And however untrue that may be, the facts unfortunately leave room for speculation. Obama's people crafted his withdrawal timeline over a year ago when he was running as an anti-war outsider during the primaries, when conditions were much worse over there and war support was politically radioactive. Back then, "Get the hell out" seemed like the most sound strategy available, and it may still be. Though the Center for a New American Security, heavily consulted in foreign policy matters by the Obama camp, has responded to changes on the ground. Once favoring a timetable for withdrawal, they now conclude that "conditional engagement" is preferable:

Under this strategy, the United States would not withdraw its forces based on a firm unilateral schedule. Rather, the time horizon for redeployment would be negotiated with the Iraqi government and nested within a more assertive approach to regional diplomacy. The United States would make it clear that Iraq and America share a common interest in achieving sustainable stability in Iraq, and that the United States is willing to help support the Iraqi government and build its security and governance capacity over the long term, but only so long as Iraqis continue to make meaningful political progress." (New Yorker)

Yet on Obama's website, more or less the same 16-month timetable remains. I don't have the expertise to decide whether a fixed timetable or conditional engagement is superior, but what is telling is Obama's refusal to budge in defiance of changing conditions (again, fairly Bush-like). No one can afford to be wrong in a campaign, or even change their minds I guess. There is nothing wrong with rethinking one's beliefs and modifying plans with a year of additional information to consider. Clearly Obama's people are careful with this issue, and mostly suggest that a President Obama would not just stubbornly cling to outdated withdrawal proposals from his campaign days, but listen to the generals who are reacting to conditions on the ground (but not necessarily agree with them). Though a major goal of his administration is to carefully but expediently end the Iraq War, which is what millions of Democrats and others are expecting him to do. He said as much on his summer Mideast tour.

So he's kind of screwed either way. Fragile gains in Iraq may behoove us to adopt conditional engagement plans instead of a fixed timetable, which could jeopardize regional stability and our long-term prospects there. Clearly we shouldn't have a Korea-like indefinite presence there as McCain alluded, and the oil-rich Iraqi Treasury should finance more of our efforts as the Saudis and Kuwaitis did during Gulf War I. But if he scraps the timetable, Obama's liberal support will revolt against him (unless he is able to skillfully persuade them that this is the best thing we can do for America and for peace, which will be a hard sell), and he will be labeled as a flip-flopper. Plus Bush will still get the "credit" for improving Iraq (he also gets the blame for botching it of course), because he started the Surge and put the generals and diplomats in place who made things better. Though if Obama sticks to his timetable he will be skewered by the Right, especially if violence increases and government breaks down as we gradually redeploy. Though if Obama begins to extirpate us as planned, maybe his predictions will come true: the Iraqis will feel the heat, and make the political and military progress necessary to bear the mantle of responsibility. Our troops will get a break, and there will be more goodwill for diplomacy and redevelopment. It's possible, and he'll be staking his re-election on it.

As I said before, by now it should be abundantly clear to everyone (and especially prominent politicians) that the Surge did have a stabilizing effect on Iraq, but 20,000 more soldiers made less of a difference than fresh-thinking Gen. Petraeus replacing Gen. Franks, less of a difference than the Sunni Awakening rejecting Al Qaeda, less of a difference than Iraqi ethnic cleansing and US construction projects segregating the hostile factions, and less of a difference than the Mahdi Army ceasefire while Al-Sadr went to school, which all happened to coincide with the Surge. Obama was unable or unwilling to make this argument to the public and his political rivals, even though plenty of others could. That really concerns me. So he can still justify his opposition to the Surge: many experts had voiced concerns, our troops are overstretched, and maybe it was still a "failure" because even though it reduced violence and bought the Maliki government some breathing room to actually govern, they still haven't reconciled and progressed much. But the Surge is one of the few "feel good stories" coming out of Iraq for mainstream Americans. Obama has to acknowledge that the troops and generals did a great job, even if they weren't the primary cause for reduced violence. That doesn't necessarily mean that he was wrong and Bush-McCain were right, for the reasons I previously described. But defiance and denial won't do him any good.