Shattered Delusions

Lately, I've been thinking about what a year 2008 was. You think of the monumental years out of the last 100: 1914, 1929, 1939, 1945, 1968, 1989, 2001. You have to agree that 2008 is in that lineup and in my lifetime, could be the most important. What did we find out? Wall Street, and US banks turned out to be a scam run by incompetents. Manufacturing giants like GM and GE weren't making money by producing things but through financial schemes. We were in Afghanistan for seven years and the Taliban were popular again. Pakistan is falling to the "terrorists." Communist China leads the capitalist world. Despite pumping in trillions of dollars and making Iraq a "democracy," the people made a hero of the man who threw the shoe at Bush.

In other words, we woke up to our delusions. I've put many core beliefs that I held under review. I'm trying to view the world with fresh eyes.

On this note, I saw this interview on Charlie Rose, with Joshua Cooper Ramo about his new chaos theory and new way of thinking. I don't agree with everything he says, and I don't agree with some of his "new thinking." But I think he has the germ of an idea here. The world has been turned upside down and our old ideas about analyzing it might be out of date. (Press play to view, it is 16 minutes.)

US Calling Pakistan's Eight Year Bluff? Supporting a Coup?

Supposedly, the Americans are imposing a deadline on the Pakistan Army to do something about the Taliban take-over of their country. The Daily Telegraph Reports:

Gen Petraeus reportedly said that "we've heard it all before" from the Pakistanis and he is looking to see concrete action by the government to destroy the Taliban in the next two weeks before determining the next course of action for the US.

"The Pakistanis have run out of excuses" and are "finally getting serious" about combating the threat from Taliban and al-Qaeda extremists operating out of north-west Pakistan, the general added.

He made these assessments in talks with US congressmen and members of the Senate, according to the Fox News channel.

Officials said that Gen Petraeus and senior officials in the Obama administration believe that the Pakistani army, led by Gen Ashfaq Kayani, is "superior" to the civilian government.

Petraeus is a very credible voice in the US Army, and we'll what that means. By the sound of it, they appear to be supporting a Coup d’état from the Pakistani military. This makes for interesting intrigue.

I'm surprised they are using such candid words about the military being superior to the civilian government. Bringing supposed democracy to Afghanistan but supporting a military coup in the neighboring country looks hypocritical. (Or maybe this is the American version of a bluff.)

This has always been a problem the US will face in the region. They promote democracy, but what happens if the popular vote elect a fundamentalist, and terrorist supporting party, like they did with Hamas in Gaza? Or in the case of Pakistan a weak, ineffectual government that is not stopping a Taliban take-over of their country? It's a difficult question. Too difficult to make a hands on decision. Therefore, the answer is a hands off solution: Leave the region entirely. Send the tankers, protected by the navy to pick up the oil, and leave it at that.

Is withdrawing from the region so crazy and unthinkable? Compared to dealing with this irrational region, with its shape shifting allegiances? The US is draining its Treasury, and wasting time and effort trying to stabilize it. Unfortunately, it's ending up destabilizing themselves. Get. Out. Of. There.

Taliban Spreading: Pakistani Army Play Pinochle in Barracks

The ridiculous theatre continues as the US pay $2 billion in military a year to Pakistan to fight the Taliban, and they in turn, pretend to. Even Time magazine is writing sarcastic headlines: Pakistan Pushes Back Against the Taliban. But How Far?

Pressed by Washington and by public opinion in Pakistan, the government made clear in negotiations with the Taliban that it could not tolerate them extending their authority beyond Swat - and the militants staged their photo-opportunity withdrawal. But, as TIME reported earlier this week, scores of fighters remained visible in the valley. "After the government's repeated warnings, only a symbolic withdrawal was made," said Gen. Abbas. The militants simply scaled down their visible presence and removed their checkpoints, but continued to recruit locals to be sent for training in Swat.

This is one of the great scams of all time.

We Don't Like It: But the Taliban are Popular in Pakistan

With the Taliban creeping up on Islamabad, the world is becoming concerned that Pakistan will be taken over by Islamic extremists. I wrote a few days ago that nobody in the main stream media reports as to whether the Taliban are popular or not. It seems that with everything I read, the angle of the story is like a zombie movie scenario where the Taliban are multiplying by contagion to the unwitting, and unwilling populace.

Google makes things easy and I came upon this article from the Guardian. The Taliban and Islamic Law are popular in the "tribal" areas.

Though there is strong support for better female access to health and education, there was profound reluctance among the largely male survey respondents to empower women more generally, with 67% supporting "honour killings". Over 50% of those polled believed Islamic law brought peace to the region and only 3.6%considered the Taliban to be terrorists.

This is appalling, but not surprising. The western, liberal lifestyle is rejected over there. Let's stop acting disingenuous.

Mortal Threat? Taliban Winning Pakistan Civil War

This is not how the Afghanistan campaign was supposed to work. The Taliban haven't been defeated and are taking over the neighbouring nuclear armed Pakistan.

Pakistan on verge of collapse

The capital of Pakistan was under threat last night after Taliban fighters threatened to overrun the volatile country and came within 60 miles of Islamabad.

It is feared the state is on the brink of collapse as Taliban fighters get closer to the nuclear powers of the country.

As violence broke out in the north-west corner of the country, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Pakistan posed a 'mortal threat' to the world.

I can't stand the coverage of this war. In the hope of de-legitimizing the Taliban, nobody is reporting whether they have popular support or not. What is the Pakistani army doing? Sitting on their ass, because they quietly support and arm the Taliban? Do they plan to fight? I can't figure it out, because the media won't say.

For goodness sakes, what does this mean? If it's a mortal threat to the world as Hillary says, why don't they explain what is going on?

War for Defense Not Nation Building

George Jonas, in the National Post, thinks we lose focus of our objectives when we try to force western values on Afghanistan and Iraq. Why people should build their own nations

Third, we should remember we're not in Afghanistan to improve family law. We're there to eradicate the terrorist foe. We didn't go to Kabul and environs to decorate Eastern landscapes with Western motifs. We didn't go to replace autocracy with democracy, or an androcentric society with a gynocentric one. If we had, we'd be crusaders, just as Osama bin Laden keeps insisting we are. We went there to get the murderous SOB, not to prove him right.

I agree with Jonas on this controversial view. However, I really could have used this article in 2001 when we were ramping up to invade Afghanistan. Freeing women from Taliban oppression was a key issue to garner support. Even people who were weary of the invasion had to admit that helping the women of the country was a noble cause. It's disappointing, to say the least, that installing the new regime didn't do much good at all for them.

Pakistan Taliban Threaten Terrorist Attack on White House

Who knows what to make of this threat?

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan – The commander of the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility Tuesday for a deadly assault on a Pakistani police academy and said the group was planning a terrorist attack on the White House that would "amaze" the world.

Baitullah Mehsud, who has a $5 million bounty on his head from the U.S., said Monday's attack on the outskirts of the eastern city of Lahore was retaliation for U.S. missile strikes against militants along the Afghan border.

"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone. He provided no details.

I've watch too many Tom Clancy movies but if he is on the phone with the Associated Press, can't they activate some satellite thingy that hones in on the phone and then fire a missile at him?

In all seriousness though, we've been bracing ourselves for one ever since 9-11. Nobody would be surprised if it happened.

Our Wonderful Ally Pakistan

It's well known that Pakistan is double dealing when it comes to the US and NATO. They receive aid money from US tax payers, an estimated $10 billion since 2001, yet they provide safe havens for Al-Qaeda and aid the Taliban. On the latter point, the New York Times reports how Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, aids the Taliban, the people we're supposed to be fighting. It's shocking to read the extent to which they are doing that:

WASHINGTON — The Taliban’s widening campaign in southern Afghanistan is made possible in part by direct support from operatives in Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, despite Pakistani government promises to sever ties to militant groups fighting in Afghanistan, according to American government officials.

The support consists of money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders who are gearing up to confront the international force in Afghanistan that will soon include some 17,000 American reinforcements.

Support for the Taliban, as well as other militant groups, is coordinated by operatives inside the shadowy S Wing of Pakistan’s spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, the officials said. There is even evidence that ISI operatives meet regularly with Taliban commanders to discuss whether to intensify or scale back violence before the Afghan elections.

How can they possibly win this conflict with this going on? They are still sending money and are planning on sending more. They are paying people who are fighting them. How do they think this will get better? Einstein's definition of insanity applies here: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

UPDATE: From the LA Times: U.S. plans to boost civilian aid to Pakistan

Reporting from Washington -- The Obama administration plans to dramatically increase civilian aid to Pakistan as part of its new strategy on Afghanistan and the surrounding region, hoping the overture will lead to more effective steps by the Pakistani military to shut down insurgent sanctuaries, U.S. officials said.

A threefold increase in civilian aid would come on top of more than $10 billion in mostly military assistance since 2001. In addition to the aid, the administration will seek similar contributions from other nations, the officials said, describing the conclusions of a strategy review on condition of anonymity because it has not been made public

What a joke.

Foreign Intervention Fatigue

Christopher Hitchens has an article in Slate about Pakistan's surrender of the province of Swat to the Taliban.

However, one should be careful of the seductions of this compromise. In a wishful attempt to bring peace with the Taliban in Pakistan itself, the government has recently ceded a fertile and prosperous and modernized valley province—the former princedom of Swat—to the ultraviolent votaries of the one party and the one God. This is not some desolate tribal area where government and frontier have been poorly delineated for decades, as in Waziristan. It is a short commute from the capital city of Islamabad. The Taliban have never won an election in the area; indeed, the last vote went exactly the other way. And refugees are pouring out of Swat as the fundamentalists take hold and begin their campaign of cultural and economic obliteration: no music, no schooling for females, no recognition of the writ of the central government.

(...)

There is another symbiosis between state failure of that kind and the spread of deadly violence. A state or region taken over by jihadists will not last long before declining into extreme poverty and backwardness and savagery. There are no exceptions to this rule. We do not need to demonstrate again what happens to countries where vicious fantasists try to govern illiterates with the help of only one book. And who will be blamed for the failure? There will not, let me assure you, be a self-criticism session mounted by the responsible mullahs. Instead, all ills will be blamed on the Crusader-Zionist conspiracy, and young men with deficiency diseases and learning disabilities will be taught how to export their frustrations to happier lands. Thus does the failed state become the rogue state. This is why we have a duty of solidarity with all the secular forces, women's groups, and other constituencies who don't want this to happen to their societies or to ours.

By all means, let field commanders make tactical agreements with discrepant groups, play them off against one another, employ the methods of divide and rule, and pit the bad against the worst. C'est la guerre. But under no circumstances should a monopoly of violence be ceded to totalitarian or theocratic forces. For this and for other reasons, we shall long have cause to regret the shameful decision to deliver the good people of the Swat Valley bound and gagged into the hands of the Taliban, and—worst of all—without even a struggle.

Note the parts that I bolded from Hitchens' article. I get tired of hearing that we have duties in places like "Swat." Six months ago, I had never heard of the place, so I don't think it's my duty to pick sides in their civil war. Wouldn't it be arrogant of me to assume such a position?

What can we do about it, anyway? Nobody wants or is prepared for a US led intervention into Pakistan. The army in Pakistan have been sitting on their hands when it comes to combating insurgents. There's no doubt, much sympathy, and outright support of the Taliban inside of the force.

If the Jihad side has that much support, maybe it is unstoppable in Pakistan. Hitchens makes a case that a failed state or a jihadist state will mean future terrorist attacks on us, over here. Maybe so. But right now, call me naive, isolation from the part of the world seems like the better course. Get out of there and let them drag themselves down, instead of us with it.

The bottom line is that nobody knows what to do with Pakistan. The western countries are broke and spread thin. A pullback from the region seems inevitable. Perhaps a quarantine of the region is necessary. Maybe we shouldn't allow Pakistanis or Afghans to be able to freely board a flight to Canada or the US, and thus stop importing their problems. Maybe a more defensive posture is the key to combating terrorist attacks on us.

We should think of new ideas because the neo-con method of attacking countries and imposing our will on them, don't seem to be doing anything to stop or even slow the growth of jihadism.

Impossible Pakistan Coming to Light

This time last year I didn't realize how bad the situation in Pakistan was. I had a vague idea that they were harboring terrorists like bin Laden, but didn't know it was a complete trainwreck. I came to realize that they are headquarters for Al Qaeda. They are headquarters for the Taliban. They fund and supply troops and arms against US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. They harass, destroy and steal NATO supplies travelling through the country. Despite the US sending $2+ billion a year of military aid to Pakistan to help fight the insurgency, the Pakistani army does nothing at best, and openly aids the insurgency at worst.

So when I see "shocking" headlines like this in the New York Post, the pulse does not quicken too much. ISLAMIC LAW TO BE IMPOSED IN PARTS OF PAKISTAN

Officials gave no timetable as to when the new laws -- which will force women to cover their faces when they go out in public and allow for Muslim clerics to advise judges when hearing cases -- would go into effect.

The Taliban said they would observe a 10-day cease-fire in support of the peace process and welcomed the new move.

"Our whole struggle is for the enforcement of Shariah [Islamic] law," said Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan. "If this really brings us the implementation of Shariah, we will fully cooperate with it."

If anything, this is good because it brings the issue out in the open. This has been brewing since the Afghan intervention began in 2001. The Bush administration tried to gloss it over and not acknowledge real problems.

Funny enough, Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson writes: This didn’t happen during the Bush administration. Like this is some new thing that started less than a month ago when Obama took office. Some people are still in denial. Bush should have never made a deal with Pakistan in the first place.

UPDATE: Here's a naive - or disingenuous - report from Yahoo News

NATO warned Tuesday that Pakistan risked creating a safe haven for Islamist extremists after it struck a deal to impose Islamic law and suspend a military offensive in the former tourist haven of Swat.

Like this would be something new. Ever heard of a guy named Osama bin Laden? If alive, he's in Pakistan. So is the core of Al Qaeda. You would think they would mention that, but not a peep in the whole report.

Quagmire Watch

Originally a NPR reporter, and now a nation builder in Afghanistan, Sarah Chayes gives her assessment of the situation there in this interview for (NPR's) Fresh Air:

Click here to access the half hour broadcast.

She is a well intentioned person and certainly has credibility for being over there in a tough situation. She believes passionately that if only we can pour money in, rebuild and temper the corrupt Karzai government, we can salvage the country. Unfortunately, listening to her makes me think how impossible it is.

Along the way she acknowledges the patience of the Taliban. They tend to withdraw when things get hot, and wait a long time for things to calm down and when people are complacent before striking. She also acknowledges compliance/direction of the Pakistani Intelligence (ISI), and hence military in aiding the Taliban.

Sorry babe, but you didn't sell me on nation building.

NOTE: For radio, you can't beat NPR, even if they are leftist sympathizers. I can see their bias but they do operate subtly, and they have respectful, introspective interviews. So much more appealing than a daily three hour monologue/harangue from Rush Limbaugh, a guy who doesn't even have guests on.

Taliban Openly Govern Parts of our "Ally" Pakistan

We are constantly assured that the government of Pakistan is trying their best to suppress Al Qaeda and Taliban forces who are fighting our troops in Afghanistan. This Timesonline article shows that the Taliban operate openly, including courts where they met out their justice. (read)

The 71 Taliban courts operating in the Kabal, Matta, Khwazakhela and Charbagh districts of Swat amount to a parallel legal system. Their judgments on finance, land disputes, smuggling and narcotics are arbitrary and handed out by self-proclaimed Taliban judges with scant legal or religious knowledge.

Taliban informers spy on people alleged to be breaking Islamic law, who then receive a three-day warning to shut their business. Most obey instantly, but anyone defying the order is arrested by armed Taliban and dragged to court for a summary trial the next day.

They are completely out in the open about their control of the region.

But wait, US commander, General Patraeus says:

Pakistan does have large, well-developed security institutions and its leaders are determined to employ their own forces in dealing with the significant extremist challenges that threaten their country.

How can he say that with a straight face? When you hear this sort of thing, you think the terrorists are hiding in caves and running a covert guerrilla operation. No, they are wide open and actually control the legal system up front in some provinces. This while the US sends an annual $2 billion of military aid to their "ally" Pakistan in the hopes that they keep it under control and help the effort. What a joke. How do they expect to win the war with this bullshit going on? It's a disgrace. A disaster in the making.

You can't win in Afghanistan unless you can get Pakistan under control. We're sitting here watching this happen. They don't seem to care that it's unwinnable, as long as they are showing that they are making some kind of effort.

US General Asks for More Troops, Helicopters for Afghanistan

The Globe and Mail reprint this wire piece from AP about how the Obama mission are going to make Afghanistan a priority and are expected to make a bigger push on the mission. (Read full article)

“Gen. McKiernan explained the current situation and talked about the incoming troops and the need for additional enablers...things like helicopters, engineers, military police, transportation assets,” said Colonel Greg Julian, a U.S. military spokesman.

“As we expand in the south, we will need those additional enablers to cover for the troops,” Col. Julian said.

The United States is sending up to 30,000 troops over to Afghanistan, some of whom will go to its volatile southern provinces, to combat a Taliban insurgency that has sent violence to record levels.

At the bottom of the article is this:

Mr. Biden's visit to Afghanistan follows his trip to neighbouring Pakistan, where aides said he met with President Asif Ali Zadari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

Mr. Biden also discussed counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and the economy with Pakistan's interior adviser Rehman Malik and army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are embroiled in a vicious Taliban-led insurgency, which has claimed thousands of lives.

I keep going on about this but the US and the media who report it are downplaying the Pakistan situation. It's like Vietnam. The Johnson Administration tried to contain the fight to Vietcong guerillas in the south but weren't going after the troop and supply line coming from the North down the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Cambodia and Laos, as if these two were operating in separate vaccuums. Fast forward to 2009 and they are saying, we can only fight the bad guys in Afghanistan, even though the headquarters and supply routes are operating safely from next door in Pakistan.

Doing something about Pakistan is difficult or maybe impossible. They are nuclear armed. But not doing anything means they cannot win. (As Herman Edwards would say: "You play to win the game.")

One could contend that the US are doing something about Pakistan. They are supplying the flimsy government, which barely controls the country with at least $2 billion a year in aid, in hopes that they'll clamp down on the Taliban, and Al Qaeda and cut off the supplies. They haven't done anything significant that way in eight years, the situation has gotten worse, so why do the gamble so much in hopes that they'll have some miraculous change of heart? Or maybe they do have a change of heart, but even with good intentions they admit that they cannot control the tribal areas where the terrorist groups operate. OK then, why are we bothering?