Thomas Ricks: Obama Only Now Realizing How Screwed He Is On the Iraq War

Thomas Ricks, Pulitzer Prize winning military journalist, who has written two best selling books on the Iraq struggle was on the Huge Hewitt Show yesterday. Transcript. Audio (see May 14)

Hewitt is a Pro-Bush hawk, and a leading defender of both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. It took some nerve to have him on, and it makes for fascinating listening. Here are some highlights:

HH: What is your assessment of Pakistan right now, Thomas Ricks? Over at your blog at Foreign Policy, which is http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com, you have a caption – Pakistan: Have I Seen This Movie. What are you talking about?

TR: I’m talking about Algeria, commando raids that the French did in Algeria in the 1950s, which are captured in that movie, Battle Of Algiers, were tactically productive, but strategically counterproductive, that is they had some battlefield success, but it undercut the political will to do much there. And the French ended up losing the war. The Pakistan military strikes me as being very much on the same course, which is they don’t want to do counterinsurgency, they don’t know how to do it. Instead, they’re going in and whacking people in neighborhoods, they’re antagonizing the locals, they’re losing support, and increasing support for their enemy Taliban.

(...)

This is timely for me. Last week I wrote a review of the film, read it here: Battle of Algiers

(...)

TR: I don’t know if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. I’m just telling you the fact of the matter is twice now, the military has confronted him and made him throw out existing positions that he has taken. He campaigned on getting a brigade out a month in Iraq, every month, for the first year he was in office. Almost the first thing he did when he began talking about Iraq was throw that campaign promise overboard. Now I’m not saying I agree with it or disagree with it. I’m just saying that a lot of people voted for him to do what he promised to do. It’s a bad thing, I think, if a guy gets elected on one thing and does another thing. On the other hand, I do think yeah, number one, Obama is a strategic thinker, and is willing to make short terms course corrections to achieve a long term goal. And second, I think he’s only now realizing just how screwed he is on Iraq, that this was the biggest mess in the history of American foreign policy, invading Iraq was the worst decision in the history of American foreign policy, and it’s going to take him years, and it’s going to take the president after him many more years to clean up the mess that George Bush made.

HH: Of course there’s a counter-argument to that, but I’m running low on time....

Great comeback Hugh.

If you have the time, give it a listen. It's very interesting.

Ralph Peters: Wrong Mission

I'm a big fan of Ralph Peters and once again, in this NY Post op-ed, he comes out swinging. He doesn't think Washington, and the Miliatry High Command understand the Afghanistan situation. AFGHAN GRAVEYARD

As this column has pointed out repeatedly, Afghanistan's worthless in and of itself. Securing hundreds of premedieval villages means local progress at the cost of strategic paralysis. To fight a mobile enemy, we need to be hypermobile. The dirt doesn't matter.

That's where special-ops come in. Our efforts should concentrate on supporting our black-program professionals. It's their fight. We need fewer troops, but a clear vision and more guts.

McChrystal needs to question all the "givens." And he needs to dismantle the NATO pleasure-palace that only impedes the war effort. Our commitment must be streamlined, not fattened and diffused. We need to focus on what must be done, casting aside what just seems nice to do.

Getting it right in Afghanistan -- and across the frontier in Pakistan -- means digging fewer wells and forcing our enemies to dig more graves. I'll bet on McChrystal to get it right. If he's allowed to.

Er, Good News: Support for bin Laden down to 34% from 50% in Pakistan

Fred Kaplan has a blunt article on the Afghanistan-Pakistan puzzle in Slate:

In short, we can send Pakistanis money, arms, handbooks, and the like. But we can't make them do what they say they're going to do or even effectively monitor whether they're doing it. Bush sent $10 billion to then-President Pervez Musharraf, who pledged that he would use the aid to go after the terrorists. For the most part, he didn't.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani military has little desire to improve its counterinsurgency skills. Many officers are more loyal to the Taliban than to the central government. And though the army is beginning to crack down on Taliban fighters in the Swat and Buner districts, it is still the case that 80 percent or 90 percent of Pakistani troops are stationed on the border with India, which most officers still see as the country's greatest threat. This perception is no mere idiosyncrasy; it is integral to the Pakistani worldview, dating back to the founding of the nation and the partition from India in 1947. It has been reinforced by three wars between the two nations, in '47, '65, and '71, as well as a war or two that nearly broke out in the past decade, and has been hammered home further by the fact that both counties have nuclear weapons.

Maybe this time the Pakistani military is really getting serious. Certainly the population is less enamored of Islamist terrorists than it used to be. Those who say they support suicide bombing under certain circumstances has plummeted from 40 percent in 2004 to just 5 percent in 2008, according to a Pew survey released this past March. (Then again, 34 percent of Pakistanis still say they have confidence in Osama bin Laden, down from 50 percent.)

I like how Kaplan throws out the bin Laden poll way down in the article. 34% is no tiny minority of extremists. The Taliban are much more popular than the Americans. There's no way to change it, but the Americans keep playing pretend and sending money. It's impossible that this will end well. Impossible.

Abetting the Forces of Terror

Ralph Peters recommeneds that we dump Pakistan: Just walk away

... Move on to the integrity issue: We claim -- or used to claim -- that we're serious about combating terrorists and punishing their backers.

Yet, we've been abetting the forces of terror by supporting Pakistan unreservedly. Islamabad merrily sponsors terror attacks on India, knowing that America will step in and convince New Delhi not to retaliate.

Apart from the myriad Pak-backed terror strikes in Kashmir, we've seen gruesome attacks in New Delhi and, most recently, in Mumbai. Pakistan's intelligence services did everything but put up billboards announcing that they were behind the terrorists.

India prepared to strike back. But we stepped in every time.

As long as Pakistan's obsessed India-haters know there won't be any penalties for terrorism, they'll keep at it. The formula isn't hard to figure out.

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?

Nothing to See Here Folks! Move Along!

A major police shakedown for suspected terrorist activities for an alleged bombing campaign in Manchester, England. The Daily Telegraph:

The bomb squad has been called in at a block of flats being searched in relation to an alleged Easter bombing campaign against shopping centres in Manchester.

Homes were evacuated at lunchtime on Monday around the decrepit block at Highgate Street, in the Edge Hill area of Liverpool.

The Army Bomb Disposal Unit was called in to support officers from the North West Counter Terrorism Unit who have been conducting searches at the address since Wednesday.

So what's the problem? It takes the second last sentence of the article to get a hint.

They had intercepted information leading them to suspect a group of students from Pakistan were close to launching attacks.

Hmmm... What could this be about, that they aren't mentioning? A war by no name, perhaps?

Ralph Peters: Our Cult of Negotiation Plays Into Fanatics Hands

Once again, Ralph Peters gives us westerners a smack in the face to tells us to wake up:

Now the terrorists have reached right across Pakistan to mount a frontal assault on a police academy. Give 'em credit -- that took guts.

And fervor. Fired by visions of serving an angry god, the terrorists are sure that they're bound to win, that all those of weaker belief will fall before them. Nothing short of death will make them quit.

The story isn't new. The US supported Muslim fanatics against the Soviets in Afghanistan. At the time, it seemed awfully clever. After all, the mujahedin were the baddest hombres in the Hindu Kush, willing to fight on after others quit.

Of course, we didn't take faith's power seriously. We still don't. Washington continues, frantically, to deny that belief has anything to do with religious terrorism.

(...)

Faith-inspired terrorists are not only willing but often impatient to die for their cause. That trumps working overtime in Washington.

When dealing with those who believe they're on a mission from their god, our cult of negotiations plays into their hands. They'll break any agreement, when the time is right. A deal isn't a deal. Unbelievers have no standing.

There still remains a misconception that jihadist fanatics are really just poor people, and if we send them enough aid money and hugs, they'll see the errors of their way and become good democratic, secular people.

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.

Canadian Convert Beheading Threat a Fraud?

I posted last week about a Canadian woman who is facing beheading: Grim Irony: Canadian Islamic Convert Woman Facing Beheading in Pakistan

The anti-terrorism site, the Jawa Report, have known about her for years, and openly wonders if this is a set up:

We've been following the story of Beverly Giesbrecht (aka, Khadija Abdul Qahar) fairly closely for years now. As the owner and operator of the "Jihad Unspun" website, she wrote countless stories about how US and Canadian troops were the "real terrorists" and how the Taliban were simply anti-imperialist freedom fighters -- the "resistance" as she liked to call them.

I actually knew Beverly was on her way to Pakistan as she and I crossed paths at some Islamist forums. She was at the forums looking for video and trying to hook up with "resistance fighters" who could help her and Phil Rees -- who she claimed to be working with --- on their "documentary" about "Islamic resistance". A "documentary" she claimed would show the "resistance" point of view.

So, if Beverly really was kidnapped by the Taliban and if she is about to be beheaded, how come nothing happened to Phil Rees? Presumably the Taliban would be more interested in killing an infidel who is sympathetic to their cause before they would want to kill a sister who is sympathetic to their cause?

Let me say publicly what every one I know is saying privately: are you really being held hostage Beverly or is this some elaborate scam to raise money for the Taliban (or for yourself and your failing website)?

Yes, I am skeptical. What would the Taliban have to gain from beheading a woman who is on the record as a supporter? Jihad Unspun used to deliver Taliban press releases unedited. The whole thing seems rather fishy.

Of course, there remains the possibility that this is exactly what this seems. That the Taliban really are holding Beverly hostage and that they really are going to behead her if a ransom isn't paid. If that is the case, then I really do feel sorry for "Khadija". Even fools deserve our pity sometimes.

Yes Beverly, the Taliban really were the bad guys all along. A hard lesson learned, and possibly too late on your part.

Grim Irony: Canadian Islamic Convert Woman Facing Beheading in Pakistan

Khadija Abdul Qahar, formerly know as Beverly Giesbrecht, was kidnapped by the Taliban in northern Pakistan. The Globe and Mail has the details, with hostage video:

BANNU, PAKISTAN and TORONTO — A Canadian held hostage after she travelled to the lawless tribal belt of northern Pakistan says the Taliban will behead her by the end of the month if a ransom isn't paid.

In a new video provided to The Globe and Mail, Beverly Giesbrecht expresses fear for her life if her captors aren't paid.

“I have been advised and asked to make this video. We have very short time now and I am going to be killed, as you can see,” she says, gesturing at the dagger on the wall behind her, pointed at her head.

(...)

Ms. Giesbrecht, who is also known as Khadija Abdul Qahaar, has been a captive for four months. The West Vancouver resident converted to Islam after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and runs a website, Jihad Unspun, that says it provides information “devoid of the constraints of mainstream media.” Her visa application to Pakistan said she was a freelance journalist working on a documentary for the Al-Jazeera television network.

She was captured by gunmen last November, reportedly by the Taliban commander Gul Bahadur, who leads fighters in the volatile North Waziristan region.

“I need some kind, someone to help me, the Pakistani government and my own country and somebody must move now, because my life is going to be over. I want to go home. So, these people are serious. Please help me,” a wavering Ms. Giesbrecht says in her latest video.

I checked out her website, and it is unapologetically pro-jihad, including a sick musical video of a US personnel carrier being blown up. The site is jihadunspun.com. Sample:

Here is a new video release from the Islamic State of Iraq that shows Mujahideen detonating an IED at a US Bradley in Baghdad that completely destroys the vehicle. Please be patient as this Windows Media file downloads to your computer.

I hope she gets out of this and realizes the errors of her way and drops the jihad posturing.

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.

All the Trouble in the World

I'm a big fan of Ralph Peters. His manic style makes me think I should consider coke and steroids, grounded with a touch of smooth scotch to be able to write like him. (Talent would help as well.) Here he is in the New York Post about his concerns with the global crisis. (article)

Pakistan? A bad idea in 1947, it's a worse idea now. Home to the Islamic bomb and the world's safest haven for terrorists, this bankrupt, dysfunctional country is the strategic bookie's odds-on favorite to pose the greatest threat to global security in this generation (there's competition, though, so spread your bet - win, place or show).

Don't discount the possibility of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, either. India would win and move on, licking its brutal wounds, but Pakistan would dissolve into an Afghanistan without the charming scenery.

Then there's China, virtually a continent unto itself. For over a decade, I've argued that we should worry more about a failing China than a successful one (although the latter poses problems, too). The speed of China's uneven transformation shattered the age-old architecture of a society once so robust even Mao couldn't break it completely.

If you want a feel for where China could go, re-read "The Grapes Of Wrath," multiply the Okies by many millions, worsen their lot, then take away the Joad Family's jalopy - but give them arms. As a minimum, we'll witness grim repression.

Failed State Watch

Pakistan Attack on Sri Lankan Cricket Team (story)

In a commando-style operation, a dozen gunmen attacked the Sri Lankan cricket team in the heart of Lahore, Pakistan's cultural and political hub, at 8:45 Tuesday morning. The attackers fired rockets, grenades and multiple rounds of ammunition at the team's bus and police escorting it, killing eight people and injuring six. To some eyewitnesses, it was last November's Mumbai attacks replayed on Pakistani soil.

No End in Sight for Afghanistan

Today NPR's Fresh Air program interviewed New York Times foreign correspondent Dexter Filkins, on the endless conflict in Afghanistan. (audio here)

Once again, NPR ask well researched questions and respectfully give enough time for the guest to give a concise and lengthy answer. Nothing comes close to this on television.

Dexter Filkins has been on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has written the book: The Forever War

Highlights of the interview include:

- The farce that Pakistan are fighting insurgents inside their own borders. Despite Pakistan being paid $2 billion a year to do this, they do not lift a finger. His own personal observations of this
- Ugly details about how the peace in Iraq was achieved by paying off the insurgents
- That Afghanistan is unwinnable
- That Pakistan is on the verge of being a failed state... with nukes.

Right now, we are living in the moment. These are crazy times. It makes me yearn for the boring old 90's.

How Do You Think This Will Work Out?

Oh boy, reading this item from Yahoo News made me realize how hopeless/maddening the situation is in Pakistan:

Authorities in a Pakistani border province plan to arm villagers with 30,000 rifles and set up an elite police unit to protect a region increasingly besieged by Taliban and al-Qaida militants, an official said Sunday.

Stiffer action in the North West Frontier Province could help offset American concern that a peace deal being negotiated in the Swat valley, a Taliban stronghold in the province, could create a haven for Islamist insurgents only 100 miles (160 kilometers) from the Pakistani capital.

(...)

The United States is already spending millions of dollars to train and equip Pakistani forces in the rugged region near the Afghan border but there was no sign it was involved in the militia plan. A U.S. Embassy spokesman could not be reached for comment.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said Saturday he will try to "remove the apprehensions of the world community" about the Swat deal when he meets U.S. officials in Washington next week, state-run media reported.

Pakistan, our supposed ally, have a highly trained and funded military who sit in their barracks and do nothing. The US spends $2 + billion a year to Pakistan for military aid. Instead of using them to fight the insurgency, they think it's a good idea to somehow arm villagers, in places already under Taliban and Al Qaeda control.

98% of these arms will fall into Taliban and Al Qaeda hands. It will only strengthen the opposition. The Pakistani army have no intention of fighting insurgents. In fact, they likely aid and supply them.

The article mentions that the US armed villager militias in Iraq with success, but this is different. There will be no US military on the ground there to insure the weapons are used properly. The US aren't allowed to be directly involved in combat in Pakistan.

This is absolute madness. Not only are the enemy allowed to roam freely, but they are indirectly armed by the United States.

Pakistan is double dealing. We know they are. Why are we sitting back and helping it happen? I'm enraged at this.

Opinion Gauge: Small Dead Animals

I was surprised to find a post on Small Dead Animals, comparing Pakistan to Cambodia of the Vietnam war era. (Cambodiastan) The blog is by Kate McMillan who is travelling this week, so she has guest bloggers.

Still, this is a site for hawks, and nary is there a discouraging word for US, Canadian and NATO efforts in the Middle East. (Up until maybe two years ago, I was pro-Iraq War, pro-Afghan war, myself.) A post that compares Afghanistan War difficulties to Vietnam War difficulties would have been unheard of up until this point. Even the most steadfast supporters are wondering whether it's worth it.

It's things like the Pakistan problem that got me feeling uncomfortable. While supporting the war it began to grate on me that Pakistan was a safe haven and headquarters for the terrorists, and then was nothing we could do about it. It was the beginning of my own new thinking about whether the war was worth it.