After years of denial, pussymouthing and semi, hemi, demi-clandestine action, Afghan president Hamid Karzai has finally told a bitter and very real truth. It's about time someone did, since the direction of the so-called "good war" is at stake.
Get a grip on this: If the US and NATO are not to lose in Afghanistan, the war must be carried to the Taliban/al-Qaeda base areas in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan.
When the US and NATO rushed to invade Afghanistan, remove Taliban from power and (in a maximal goal) apprehend the al-Qaeda command and control group, the presence of border sanctuaries in Pakistan's remote, mountainous and barely governed FATA was ignored. Perhaps this was because the current administration did not want to take the time and spend the political capital necessary to assure there were enough boots on the ground to limit egress from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Perhaps it was because Washington did not want to unduly pressure the Islamist leaning Pakistani military and intelligence services.
Perhaps it was because the Rumsfeld run Defense Department really, really, really believed that "shock and awe" would so stun the recipients that they would merely cower waiting to be arrested. Or, perhaps it was because the Rumsfeld Crew of Neocon Ninnies just wanted to make sure we had the force available for the real war--the invasion of Iraq.
The reasons don't matter. Only the results.
Even as US and allied forces including Afghan combatants entered the Tora Bora region, the Pakistanis were removing their Taliban and al-Qaeda clients. In at least some cases they did this while our men watched.
If one considers successful and unsuccessful counterinsurgency campaigns, a specific commonality of both stands out. It's not winning the hearts and minds of the uncommitted. It's not killing insurgents faster than they can replace their losses. It's not even the presence or absence of advanced technology weapons and equipment in the hands of the counterinsurgents.
The commonality?
Sanctuaries. Convenient cross-border and relatively immune from effective attack areas for rest, resupply and training.
Get a grip on this.
In the Greek Civil War following World War II, the Greek government became successful only after Josip Tito closed the borders between Yugoslavia and Greece while the Greek National Army with the addition of US support was able to interdict the Albanian and Bulgarian borders with Greece.
In Malaya the twelve year long British effort to counter the communist Chinese insurgents was made possible by the simple fact that the "bandits" had no sanctuary. The same can be seen in the contemporaneous success of the US and Philippine national government in quashing the Huk insurgency.
When the US entered the South Vietnamese insurgency, insufficient thought was given to the ready availability of sanctuaries in both Cambodia and Laos. Ultimately these sanctuaries were a far from inconsiderable factor in the inability of the US to effectively counter either the insurgency or the introduction of North Vietnamese forces between 1965 and 1969.
Considering the cultural, linguistic and religious identity of the population on either side of the line on the map constituting the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, it is inconceivable that the US and NATO planners had no coherent program for either sealing the border (a near impossibility) or neutralising the base camps in FATA.
The time to do either with relatively low cost and visibility came and went four to five years ago. Since then the embedded Islamist/jihadist groups in FATA and the Swat portion of the North West Frontier Province have become laws on to themselves. This has occurred dispite the rhetoric eminating from Islamibad and in large measure because the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) continues to support the Islamist entities.
Karzai has finally blown the whistle on the pretense that Pakistan is fighting "Islamist extremists" in the FATA. He has also, in effect, dropped the flag on the Pakistani play that the Frontier Corps is not riddled with Talibanists.
As widely reported, Kazai has threatened to let the Afghan National Army undertake operations in FATA. The Associated Press report gives a representative coverage of Karzai's move. See, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFzfzO1J3TT_eqpmvsK7pYkw3H4gD91AM7EG0.
The response from Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) which is the Pakistani version of Taliban was not long in coming. See, http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=21827.
The spokesman for TTP, Moulvi Omar, vowed that his fighters would wage war with new resolve and furor. He also, according to the Media Line, telephone interview, called Karzai "sick." His entire statement read, "Karzai is 'sick' and utterly frustrated at Taliban successes in Afghanistan. Taliban has won victory in its resistance against NATO forces, and Karzai's government is confronted with a humiliating defeat."
Sick or not, the Afghan president has issued a challenge. Not just to TTP but to the Islamabad regime as well.
It will no longer do for the Pakistanis' new, democratically elected civilian government merely to assert that it is negotiating only with "moderate" members of TTP or to insist that the Pakistani Army will "vigorously" defend the country's sovereignty or to spew venom accusing the US and its allies of butchering innocent Frontier Corps' personnel.
Karzai's challenge actually demands that the Government of Pakistan stop being mugwumps, get off the fence and decide which side it is on. This possibility probably scares the pants off the current administration in Washington.
It has been whispered around Foggy Bottom, Langley and the Pentagon for years that the Pakistanis were a damn thin and pliable reed to lean any of our policy on. It has been well known and understood for beaucoup years by all except the most dunderheaded of neocon ninnies that the Government of Pakistan was not an ally and never really had been.
Pakistan had been thrown into bed with the US by the concatenation of the Cold War (specifically the objectionable from our perspective "non-aligned" nature of India's policies during the Fifties, Sixties, Seventies and Eighties) and Pakistan's running sore wars with India over the Ran of Kutch and Kashmir. These two factors and nothing else made Pakistan a client state not an ally.
Nor were the US and Pakistan allies during our proxy war with the Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan. When the Reagan administration allowed control of the mujaheddin to slip from our fingers into those of the ISI, we inadvertently opened the door to both the growth of Islamism and the eventual victory of Taliban.
It's time for those who have whispered in the corridors of power to start talking out loud. Drop the pretense. If we really want not to lose in Afghanistan, we have to back Karzai's play.
It takes more than boots on the ground to not lose a counterinsurgency. It takes moving the boots to the sanctuaries and denying the insurgents any place to hide, any place to take a breath free from fear.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Sometimes Ignorance Is Bliss
For the past five years the unenlightened in the world could rest more or less secure in the belief that the plans furnished by the A.Q.Khan Nuclear Technology Smuggling Group were for relatively elderly, comparatively inefficient weapons that used a lot of highly enriched uranium for a rather small (if nukes can ever be considered "small") bang. The A.Q. Khan state of the art seemed to be embodied in the Libyan designs derived from a late Fifties Chinese design.
Turns out that just wasn't true. Dang it!
Computers belonging to the A.Q. Khan network found in Switzerland, Bangkok and other places contained the electronic blueprints for designs of much greater efficiency. Greater efficiency means less HEU and more bang. Greater efficiency means a smaller throw-weight so a warhead could be mated more easily with small ballistic missiles such as the recently tested Iranian Shahab III. The Shahab III, it should be recalled, is based on a North Korean prototype.
The new information regarding the accomplishments of the A.Q. Khan network can be found at several sites including, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/world/asia/15nuke.html?em&ex=1213675200&en=7dae8fb60503ce92&ei=5087%0A, and from the associated press, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8CzKrsV9Az2UJ81BzmjgA8Z2k4wD91ALK5O1. The AFP covers it as well, as does the BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7455249.stm, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9hJbJWhcA7PMnBt0YGHZG7r5PxQ. (It is interesting to note that Google lists less than 120 outlets covering this revelation.)
The computers containing the electronic blueprints were discovered in 2006 in the possession of Swiss "businessmen." The data were recently destroyed under proper supervision. While those copies of the information are no longer with us, we are left with a very large question.
Where else did the designs go?
It has been well established that the Khan Nukes-For-Profit program sold information and technical expertise to the North Koreans, the Libyans and (in highest probability) the Iranians. That is a passel of bad actors.
But, it is not all the bad actors in the world. Not by a long way.
A closely linked question concerns the nature of the designs. Did they deal simply with HEU "gun type" weapons or did they include plutonium based implosion devices as well?
Justifiably most media and political attention has been focused on the matter of highly enriched uranium. The high profile Iranian effort is focused in that direction. Beyond that geopolitical reality lies a technological one.
The "gun type" weapons such as the one the US employed on Hiroshima are easier to build. Further they do not need to be tested. As long as the two subcritical masses of HEU are brought together hard enough and fast enough to initiate fission, a satisfactory bang will result.
(The Geek stipulates there are other important considerations such as the reflector, shielding and so on, but the basic fact remains: the damn things are easier to make.)
The plutonium or implosion bomb is harder to make. First one needs plutonium. The nice thing about plutonium is that it is made automatically in any nuclear reactor which contains slugs of the common uranium isotope, U-238. This is particularly true in reactors not intended for electric power production such as apparently was the case with the reactor under construction in Syria.
It is more difficult to extract the plutonium from the irradiated slugs than to produce it in the first place. All the separation operations, chemical and mechanical, must be carried out by remote control because of the fierce radioactivity of the raw materials.
Still, the technology for plutonium separation is well understood, at least in principle and has been practiced by the US since 1944 and other countries more recently.
More difficult than obtaining the plutonium is its machining into the correct shape for implosion. A task of equal magnitude is formulating and fabricating the mix of explosives into the proper configuration for the rapid application of equal implosive force to all portions of the plutonium sphere.
Again the process and design parameters are well understood in principle. The devil resides in the details of execution.
If the electronic blueprints found on the computers included those for an implosion device with requisite details as to the plutonium machining and the explosive lens fabrication, the nuclear threat facing the world from rogue and other irresponsible or unstable states as well as non-state actors grows appreciably.
By and large, implosion devices are smaller, lighter and far more powerful than gun type uranium weapons. Also, the plutonium weapon, unlike its less sophisticated uranium cousin, admits of "boosting" by the introduction of tritium into the hollow spot in the center of the plutonium core. Boosted fission weapons were common by the mid-sixties, so if the A.Q. Khan plans were, as stated, representative of that period, there is every possibility that they contain this feature.
Normally implosion weapons come with an automatic downside. They have to be tested. Reality has to confirm the math. That was why the US held its "Day of Trinity" in July 1945.
If, however, the Khan plans are either based on tested Chinese designs or were represented by the successful North Korean nudet (nuclear detonation), there would be no need to test a device made in strict accordance with the blueprints.
The seemingly fortuitous release of the new information regarding the Khan smuggling group does serve to reinforce the need to bring Iran in out of its self-imposed, arrogantly asserted shell. Whether the uranium enrichment facility which has so preoccupied the West for months or other aspects of the Iranian nuclear program, it is essential to assure us and the rest of the world that all portions of the nuclear fuel cycle are under the strictest possible supervision.
The possibilities brought to mind by the belated release and confirmation of information held by various national governments and international agencies for nearly two years are too serious to be either ignored or pushed aside. A.Q. and his associates have let the most evil of genies loose in the world.
We may not be able to put the cloud back in its bottle. But, we sure as hell have to try.
Turns out that just wasn't true. Dang it!
Computers belonging to the A.Q. Khan network found in Switzerland, Bangkok and other places contained the electronic blueprints for designs of much greater efficiency. Greater efficiency means less HEU and more bang. Greater efficiency means a smaller throw-weight so a warhead could be mated more easily with small ballistic missiles such as the recently tested Iranian Shahab III. The Shahab III, it should be recalled, is based on a North Korean prototype.
The new information regarding the accomplishments of the A.Q. Khan network can be found at several sites including, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/world/asia/15nuke.html?em&ex=1213675200&en=7dae8fb60503ce92&ei=5087%0A, and from the associated press, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8CzKrsV9Az2UJ81BzmjgA8Z2k4wD91ALK5O1. The AFP covers it as well, as does the BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7455249.stm, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9hJbJWhcA7PMnBt0YGHZG7r5PxQ. (It is interesting to note that Google lists less than 120 outlets covering this revelation.)
The computers containing the electronic blueprints were discovered in 2006 in the possession of Swiss "businessmen." The data were recently destroyed under proper supervision. While those copies of the information are no longer with us, we are left with a very large question.
Where else did the designs go?
It has been well established that the Khan Nukes-For-Profit program sold information and technical expertise to the North Koreans, the Libyans and (in highest probability) the Iranians. That is a passel of bad actors.
But, it is not all the bad actors in the world. Not by a long way.
A closely linked question concerns the nature of the designs. Did they deal simply with HEU "gun type" weapons or did they include plutonium based implosion devices as well?
Justifiably most media and political attention has been focused on the matter of highly enriched uranium. The high profile Iranian effort is focused in that direction. Beyond that geopolitical reality lies a technological one.
The "gun type" weapons such as the one the US employed on Hiroshima are easier to build. Further they do not need to be tested. As long as the two subcritical masses of HEU are brought together hard enough and fast enough to initiate fission, a satisfactory bang will result.
(The Geek stipulates there are other important considerations such as the reflector, shielding and so on, but the basic fact remains: the damn things are easier to make.)
The plutonium or implosion bomb is harder to make. First one needs plutonium. The nice thing about plutonium is that it is made automatically in any nuclear reactor which contains slugs of the common uranium isotope, U-238. This is particularly true in reactors not intended for electric power production such as apparently was the case with the reactor under construction in Syria.
It is more difficult to extract the plutonium from the irradiated slugs than to produce it in the first place. All the separation operations, chemical and mechanical, must be carried out by remote control because of the fierce radioactivity of the raw materials.
Still, the technology for plutonium separation is well understood, at least in principle and has been practiced by the US since 1944 and other countries more recently.
More difficult than obtaining the plutonium is its machining into the correct shape for implosion. A task of equal magnitude is formulating and fabricating the mix of explosives into the proper configuration for the rapid application of equal implosive force to all portions of the plutonium sphere.
Again the process and design parameters are well understood in principle. The devil resides in the details of execution.
If the electronic blueprints found on the computers included those for an implosion device with requisite details as to the plutonium machining and the explosive lens fabrication, the nuclear threat facing the world from rogue and other irresponsible or unstable states as well as non-state actors grows appreciably.
By and large, implosion devices are smaller, lighter and far more powerful than gun type uranium weapons. Also, the plutonium weapon, unlike its less sophisticated uranium cousin, admits of "boosting" by the introduction of tritium into the hollow spot in the center of the plutonium core. Boosted fission weapons were common by the mid-sixties, so if the A.Q. Khan plans were, as stated, representative of that period, there is every possibility that they contain this feature.
Normally implosion weapons come with an automatic downside. They have to be tested. Reality has to confirm the math. That was why the US held its "Day of Trinity" in July 1945.
If, however, the Khan plans are either based on tested Chinese designs or were represented by the successful North Korean nudet (nuclear detonation), there would be no need to test a device made in strict accordance with the blueprints.
The seemingly fortuitous release of the new information regarding the Khan smuggling group does serve to reinforce the need to bring Iran in out of its self-imposed, arrogantly asserted shell. Whether the uranium enrichment facility which has so preoccupied the West for months or other aspects of the Iranian nuclear program, it is essential to assure us and the rest of the world that all portions of the nuclear fuel cycle are under the strictest possible supervision.
The possibilities brought to mind by the belated release and confirmation of information held by various national governments and international agencies for nearly two years are too serious to be either ignored or pushed aside. A.Q. and his associates have let the most evil of genies loose in the world.
We may not be able to put the cloud back in its bottle. But, we sure as hell have to try.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Israel Has The Bomb, Why Not Iran, Too?
Israel and Iran share one small feature in common. Both have faced existential threats alone and isolated.
From its foundation sixty years ago, Israel has faced real, up-close-and-personal threats to its existence. Much of the time the country has faced these threats alone. Isolated. More recently Israel has been treated as a pariah, a moral leper.
Since the overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, this country has been seen (at least in the US) as an international outlaw, exporter of terror and revolution--a moral leper. During the Iraq-Iran War, the Islamic Republic faced an existential threat. Alone and isolated.
When the Iraqis used mustard and nerve agents against the Iranians, the response by the US as well as the UN was to chastise both Iraq and Iran. This was done despite the overwhelming evidence that only Iraq had chemical weapons. Only Iraq could use chemical weapons.
From the perspective of Tehran the reaction of the UN, the so-called "international community," showed that the unmitigated hostility emanating from the United States had infected the rest of the world. At the existential crossroads, Tehran determined that it was alone. Isolated.
(Before you start heaving virtual bombs at the Geek, be advised that he is in no way comparing the moral positions of Israel and Iran. Neither is he equating the duration of the Israeli experience with that of Iran. Finally, he is in no way overlooking that the reprehensible conduct of the Ayatollah Khomenei's Revolutionary Government, including but not limited to the seizure of the American Embassy in 1979, was responsible for the country's pariah status.)
Existential threats, particularly when faced alone and unaided have the power, like the prospect of imminent execution, to focus the mind wonderfully. Both the Israeli and Iranian governments made a critical decision. Both sought deterrence and ultimate defense through the development of weapons of mass destruction.
The Israelis kept quiet about it. They developed the required technology largely--but not exclusively--through their own in-house efforts. The Government of Israel has never officially acknowledged that it possesses a single nuclear weapon. It's called ambiguous deterrence.
No threats. No bomb waving. No posturing.
It works. As far back as the Yom Kippur War twenty-five years ago, the existence of a very limited Israeli nuclear capacity helped assure that the US provided necessary weapons resupply and other non-combat assistance. It helped assure that the Soviet Union exercised a restraining influence on its Mideast clients.
While there are some in Muslim countries who assert Israel "keeps bullying hundreds of millions of Muslims by brandishing her nuclear bombs in their faces," this is simply not true. Ambiguous deterrence is the name of the game. (Quote from, http://www.daily.pk/world/middle-east/83-middle-east/4314-israels-nuclear-weapons-and-bombs-are-the-problem-in-the-middle-east.html.)
Even before the end of the Iraq-Iran War, the Iranians started work on their own WMD programs. Chemical weapons are easily mastered--particularly with aid from the collapsing Soviet Union. Bioweapons are a bit harder, but the record of Iranian imports (or attempts to import) relevant equipment and materials shows that the mullahs have succeeded in that field as well.
So far Tehran has been practicing the ambiguous deterrent approach with regard to their chemical and biological capacities (as they have done with their support and sponsorship of trans-national terrorism.) The reasons for this discrete approach are self-evident. The combination of chemical and biological agents with the clandestine techniques of usage which typify terror operations would call down upon Iran a metal storm of unprecedented proportions.
The tip of the WMD pyramid is nuclear weapons. A state with a credible nuclear capacity is a state that must be taken seriously.
Iran has a great need to be taken seriously. The mullahs and many others in the country believe that its size, resources, geographical position, and history entitle it to be taken seriously as a, perhaps the leader of Islam. Similarly, it is believed in the same circles that only if Iran is taken very, very seriously by the West, can it be assured of survival.
Consider the following question, please. Why did the US not only refrain from invading Pakistan following the Pakistani aided withdrawal of al-Qaeda and Taliban elements from Afghanistan in 2002 but reward the less than cooperative "ally" with billions of dollars of foreign and military aid in the following years?
It's a fair question. And there are a number of alternative answers.
From the Tehran perspective the answer may well be, "Because the Paks have a nuclear capacity and everybody knows it."
In part Pakistan developed and publicly tested their highly enriched uranium bomb(s) because it faced what it believed to be an existential threat from India. Like two hard cases in a Wild West saloon in a bad movie, India and Pakistan had to be polite to one another because each was strapped. Strapped with enough bombs to destroy the sub-continent.
The unambiguous possession of the atomic bomb by Pakistan gave it necessary leverage. Leverage to immunise itself against American invasion of the frontier areas. Leverage to have itself declared an ally in the global war on terrorism. Leverage to be taken seriously by the West generally.
Leverage is a prized diplomatic commodity. In the race for influence within Islamic countries, Iran starts with a disadvantage. It's a Shia majority country. In a Sunni dominated Islam.
Iran needs to offset this disability. The bomb is a great offsetter. The bomb is a great lever.
Tehran might well have reasoned that the Israelis have the bomb because the Americans (and other Western nations) allowed them to get it. The mullahs might even have reasoned that the US and its Western allies allowed the Pakistanis to acquire a nuclear capacity because it served their interests.
Now, the mullahs must be wondering why the US and Europe are so opposed to Iran duplicating what both Israel and Pakistan have done.
More than a few anti-Israeli Muslims ask the same question. Usually the answer echoes this one from the previously cited post.
And that point?
Tehran is inherently untrustworthy. It cannot and must not be trusted with atomic weapons. The history of the Islamic Republic of Iran--its takeover of an embassy, holding of hostages, sponsoring of terrorism, supporting of hostile forces in Iraq all show that adult supervision of the mullahs is required.
Compared with Iran, even a shabby regime of Islamists and Islamist appeasers such as that in Pakistan is a monument to trustworthy stability. The world is a more dangerous place because Pakistan not only has fabricated nuclear weapons but also has a stockpile of HEU which is, pace official Pakistani and US governmental assurances, not so well guarded as to be outside the reach of the ambitious jihadist terrorist.
The world would be an even more unsafe and unstable place if the Islamic Republic of Iran with its record, both real and rhetorical, were to gain access to weapons grade material.
And, the mullahs ought to get a grip on this reality: Nowhere on earth would be more unsafe than downtown Tehran if a nuclear detonation were to occur anywhere the day after the Iranians achieve a capacity for nuclear weapons.
From its foundation sixty years ago, Israel has faced real, up-close-and-personal threats to its existence. Much of the time the country has faced these threats alone. Isolated. More recently Israel has been treated as a pariah, a moral leper.
Since the overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, this country has been seen (at least in the US) as an international outlaw, exporter of terror and revolution--a moral leper. During the Iraq-Iran War, the Islamic Republic faced an existential threat. Alone and isolated.
When the Iraqis used mustard and nerve agents against the Iranians, the response by the US as well as the UN was to chastise both Iraq and Iran. This was done despite the overwhelming evidence that only Iraq had chemical weapons. Only Iraq could use chemical weapons.
From the perspective of Tehran the reaction of the UN, the so-called "international community," showed that the unmitigated hostility emanating from the United States had infected the rest of the world. At the existential crossroads, Tehran determined that it was alone. Isolated.
(Before you start heaving virtual bombs at the Geek, be advised that he is in no way comparing the moral positions of Israel and Iran. Neither is he equating the duration of the Israeli experience with that of Iran. Finally, he is in no way overlooking that the reprehensible conduct of the Ayatollah Khomenei's Revolutionary Government, including but not limited to the seizure of the American Embassy in 1979, was responsible for the country's pariah status.)
Existential threats, particularly when faced alone and unaided have the power, like the prospect of imminent execution, to focus the mind wonderfully. Both the Israeli and Iranian governments made a critical decision. Both sought deterrence and ultimate defense through the development of weapons of mass destruction.
The Israelis kept quiet about it. They developed the required technology largely--but not exclusively--through their own in-house efforts. The Government of Israel has never officially acknowledged that it possesses a single nuclear weapon. It's called ambiguous deterrence.
No threats. No bomb waving. No posturing.
It works. As far back as the Yom Kippur War twenty-five years ago, the existence of a very limited Israeli nuclear capacity helped assure that the US provided necessary weapons resupply and other non-combat assistance. It helped assure that the Soviet Union exercised a restraining influence on its Mideast clients.
While there are some in Muslim countries who assert Israel "keeps bullying hundreds of millions of Muslims by brandishing her nuclear bombs in their faces," this is simply not true. Ambiguous deterrence is the name of the game. (Quote from, http://www.daily.pk/world/middle-east/83-middle-east/4314-israels-nuclear-weapons-and-bombs-are-the-problem-in-the-middle-east.html.)
Even before the end of the Iraq-Iran War, the Iranians started work on their own WMD programs. Chemical weapons are easily mastered--particularly with aid from the collapsing Soviet Union. Bioweapons are a bit harder, but the record of Iranian imports (or attempts to import) relevant equipment and materials shows that the mullahs have succeeded in that field as well.
So far Tehran has been practicing the ambiguous deterrent approach with regard to their chemical and biological capacities (as they have done with their support and sponsorship of trans-national terrorism.) The reasons for this discrete approach are self-evident. The combination of chemical and biological agents with the clandestine techniques of usage which typify terror operations would call down upon Iran a metal storm of unprecedented proportions.
The tip of the WMD pyramid is nuclear weapons. A state with a credible nuclear capacity is a state that must be taken seriously.
Iran has a great need to be taken seriously. The mullahs and many others in the country believe that its size, resources, geographical position, and history entitle it to be taken seriously as a, perhaps the leader of Islam. Similarly, it is believed in the same circles that only if Iran is taken very, very seriously by the West, can it be assured of survival.
Consider the following question, please. Why did the US not only refrain from invading Pakistan following the Pakistani aided withdrawal of al-Qaeda and Taliban elements from Afghanistan in 2002 but reward the less than cooperative "ally" with billions of dollars of foreign and military aid in the following years?
It's a fair question. And there are a number of alternative answers.
From the Tehran perspective the answer may well be, "Because the Paks have a nuclear capacity and everybody knows it."
In part Pakistan developed and publicly tested their highly enriched uranium bomb(s) because it faced what it believed to be an existential threat from India. Like two hard cases in a Wild West saloon in a bad movie, India and Pakistan had to be polite to one another because each was strapped. Strapped with enough bombs to destroy the sub-continent.
The unambiguous possession of the atomic bomb by Pakistan gave it necessary leverage. Leverage to immunise itself against American invasion of the frontier areas. Leverage to have itself declared an ally in the global war on terrorism. Leverage to be taken seriously by the West generally.
Leverage is a prized diplomatic commodity. In the race for influence within Islamic countries, Iran starts with a disadvantage. It's a Shia majority country. In a Sunni dominated Islam.
Iran needs to offset this disability. The bomb is a great offsetter. The bomb is a great lever.
Tehran might well have reasoned that the Israelis have the bomb because the Americans (and other Western nations) allowed them to get it. The mullahs might even have reasoned that the US and its Western allies allowed the Pakistanis to acquire a nuclear capacity because it served their interests.
Now, the mullahs must be wondering why the US and Europe are so opposed to Iran duplicating what both Israel and Pakistan have done.
More than a few anti-Israeli Muslims ask the same question. Usually the answer echoes this one from the previously cited post.
Indeed, one exaggerates very little by saying that the United States of America is subservient to Israel and that American politicians, including members of Congress and the Senate as well as presidential candidates are more answerable to the Jewish lobby, especially AIPAC, than they are to their own American constituentsWhile the Israel lobby is potent and it sometimes seems to the Geek that the Israeli tail is wagging the dog of US foreign policy, this assessment misses the point.
And that point?
Tehran is inherently untrustworthy. It cannot and must not be trusted with atomic weapons. The history of the Islamic Republic of Iran--its takeover of an embassy, holding of hostages, sponsoring of terrorism, supporting of hostile forces in Iraq all show that adult supervision of the mullahs is required.
Compared with Iran, even a shabby regime of Islamists and Islamist appeasers such as that in Pakistan is a monument to trustworthy stability. The world is a more dangerous place because Pakistan not only has fabricated nuclear weapons but also has a stockpile of HEU which is, pace official Pakistani and US governmental assurances, not so well guarded as to be outside the reach of the ambitious jihadist terrorist.
The world would be an even more unsafe and unstable place if the Islamic Republic of Iran with its record, both real and rhetorical, were to gain access to weapons grade material.
And, the mullahs ought to get a grip on this reality: Nowhere on earth would be more unsafe than downtown Tehran if a nuclear detonation were to occur anywhere the day after the Iranians achieve a capacity for nuclear weapons.
The Voice of America (And Barrak Obama) Needs To Get A Grip
Established back in 1942 as a primary, reliable source of news, the VOA has long prided itself on using the propaganda of the truth and maintaining strict neutrality on domestic political affairs. By and large it has been both truthful and impartial over the past two thirds of a century.
That's why the Geek regrets seeing it fall off the wagon of truthful, impartial and accurate reporting. VOA blew it with a treatment of the foreign policy views of Senator Barrak Obama. Not the views, per se. Rather in how the outlet framed the senator's positions. Take a look at the article in question: http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-13-voa13.cfm.
VOA quotes "experts" (only one is identified and quoted by name) as saying that Senator Obama's foreign policy stance is in the "mainstream" of US experience during the past century. Consider the following assessment.
The quote makes presidents, Cold Warriors of the most determined sort, out to be a collection of social workers and do-gooders. Get a grip!
The historical record shows clearly that the two named presidents as well as others unnamed used the promotion of democracy, the underscoring of human rights as well as campaigns for economic development and (to a limited extent only) economic justice as tactical weapons in the strategic confrontation with both Moscow and Beijing sponsored communism. In the same way and to the same end both Truman and Kennedy used armed force.
The first in Korea. The second in Cuba, Laos and South Vietnam.
These two Democratic presidents as well as others ranging from Wilson to Lyndon Johnson saw that strategic goals were only achievable through the correct mix of tactics, the proper balance of the several elements of national power.
None would have eschewed the utility of military force--whether actually employed or merely threatened. Senator Obama, pace Voice of America, has given no plausible indication that he understands the military to be an instrument of national power.
This does not mean that either Truman or Kennedy were eager to seek war. Indeed, every historical indicator is to the contrary. Both men were combat veterans. They undoubtedly would have agreed with Senator McCain's statement that "only a fool or a fraud" would glorify war (or, the Geek adds, seek it.)
Senator Obama may have spent a few childhood years in Indonesia but he has not seen a microsecond of combat. Whether his youthful observation of an Asian-Muslim culture represents the basis for a "unique perspective in the conduct of foreign affairs" is at best doubtful.
VOA quoted Peter Beinart, a US foreign policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, as saying,
Either the CFR has fallen on tough intellectual times or Beinart was desperately misquoted. The Geek hopes it was the second.
Why?
Because Peter Beinart's analysis is as historically wrong as a cat barking. Leaving aside the risible anachronisms of global warming, etc, it is important to note two historical realities about the Princeton University political science professor turned politician, Wilson.
Wilson was willing, even eager, to sit at the head of the post-World War I peace conference. He knew that only American participation in the two and a half year old war would allow him to do that. He had a vision, an ideal, of the world being made safe from big power war through the creation of an international league. He was willing to purchase that vision with the blood of American men. Roughly ten times as many Americans died in the next eighteen months than have died in Iraq to date to buy the Man From Princeton his ticket at the head of the peace table.
What did the sacrifice get Wilson? The US? The world?
Quick answer. World War II.
If Senator Obama is Wilson reincarnate, the world had better watch out.
The second fact about President Wilson ignored by the VOA "expert" is simply that the idealistic, moralistic, church-going Presbyterian ordered more US military interventions than any other American president to date. It might also be mentioned that all of these were unilateral. No UN fig leaf back then to cover American policy genitalia.
The Voice of America offered a defense of Senator Obama's strongly criticised willingness to meet with leaders of countries hostile to the US. The defense? Read on--
Summit talks are dangerous. Even with careful preparation they are a human minefield. The US-USSR summits from Vienna on show this clearly. A nice smile and a childhood in Indonesia won't change that.
Neither will fascination with a half-Black, half-White candidate overseas. Here's the CFR expert again--
If the Geek were a leader of a hostile state, he would be licking his lips and sharpening his knife for the encounter with the Nice (Naive) Young Man From Chicago. The Geek might even paraphrase one of the Commander Guy's less felicitous phrases, "Bring him on!"
That's why the Geek regrets seeing it fall off the wagon of truthful, impartial and accurate reporting. VOA blew it with a treatment of the foreign policy views of Senator Barrak Obama. Not the views, per se. Rather in how the outlet framed the senator's positions. Take a look at the article in question: http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-13-voa13.cfm.
VOA quotes "experts" (only one is identified and quoted by name) as saying that Senator Obama's foreign policy stance is in the "mainstream" of US experience during the past century. Consider the following assessment.
His views reflect some of the foreign policy positions of previous American presidents, particularly those of the Democratic party. Harry Truman, John Kennedy and others stressed that the promotion of democracy and human rights cannot be separated from the struggle against poverty and despair.
The quote makes presidents, Cold Warriors of the most determined sort, out to be a collection of social workers and do-gooders. Get a grip!
The historical record shows clearly that the two named presidents as well as others unnamed used the promotion of democracy, the underscoring of human rights as well as campaigns for economic development and (to a limited extent only) economic justice as tactical weapons in the strategic confrontation with both Moscow and Beijing sponsored communism. In the same way and to the same end both Truman and Kennedy used armed force.
The first in Korea. The second in Cuba, Laos and South Vietnam.
These two Democratic presidents as well as others ranging from Wilson to Lyndon Johnson saw that strategic goals were only achievable through the correct mix of tactics, the proper balance of the several elements of national power.
None would have eschewed the utility of military force--whether actually employed or merely threatened. Senator Obama, pace Voice of America, has given no plausible indication that he understands the military to be an instrument of national power.
This does not mean that either Truman or Kennedy were eager to seek war. Indeed, every historical indicator is to the contrary. Both men were combat veterans. They undoubtedly would have agreed with Senator McCain's statement that "only a fool or a fraud" would glorify war (or, the Geek adds, seek it.)
Senator Obama may have spent a few childhood years in Indonesia but he has not seen a microsecond of combat. Whether his youthful observation of an Asian-Muslim culture represents the basis for a "unique perspective in the conduct of foreign affairs" is at best doubtful.
VOA quoted Peter Beinart, a US foreign policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, as saying,
There's more of a sense in Obama, echoing back to [President] Woodrow Wilson, of the idea that we are in a world of common threats, things like global warming, public health threats, economic instability, threaten us as well as other nations so they have to be dealt with through cooperation.
Either the CFR has fallen on tough intellectual times or Beinart was desperately misquoted. The Geek hopes it was the second.
Why?
Because Peter Beinart's analysis is as historically wrong as a cat barking. Leaving aside the risible anachronisms of global warming, etc, it is important to note two historical realities about the Princeton University political science professor turned politician, Wilson.
Wilson was willing, even eager, to sit at the head of the post-World War I peace conference. He knew that only American participation in the two and a half year old war would allow him to do that. He had a vision, an ideal, of the world being made safe from big power war through the creation of an international league. He was willing to purchase that vision with the blood of American men. Roughly ten times as many Americans died in the next eighteen months than have died in Iraq to date to buy the Man From Princeton his ticket at the head of the peace table.
What did the sacrifice get Wilson? The US? The world?
Quick answer. World War II.
If Senator Obama is Wilson reincarnate, the world had better watch out.
The second fact about President Wilson ignored by the VOA "expert" is simply that the idealistic, moralistic, church-going Presbyterian ordered more US military interventions than any other American president to date. It might also be mentioned that all of these were unilateral. No UN fig leaf back then to cover American policy genitalia.
The Voice of America offered a defense of Senator Obama's strongly criticised willingness to meet with leaders of countries hostile to the US. The defense? Read on--
Obama has dismissed such criticism, saying previous presidents including Republican Ronald Reagan met with America's enemies.What he failed to state was the self-evident: Reagan's meetings were well-staffed and briefed in advance. President Reagan had an agenda. Even so, the strongly anti-nuclear weapons oriented president went over the edge--more than once. It took intense effort on the part of others in his administration to get the nuclear arms limitation and reduction talks back on line. That they were ultimately successful owes much less to our efforts than to those of the Soviet leader.
Summit talks are dangerous. Even with careful preparation they are a human minefield. The US-USSR summits from Vienna on show this clearly. A nice smile and a childhood in Indonesia won't change that.
Neither will fascination with a half-Black, half-White candidate overseas. Here's the CFR expert again--
The fact that he's lived in Indonesia, which is a Muslim country, but also that he himself has roots outside the United States and that he has roots in the Third World, I think will be a powerful thing for people around the world and that will have an impact on their leaders.Right. Sure.
If the Geek were a leader of a hostile state, he would be licking his lips and sharpening his knife for the encounter with the Nice (Naive) Young Man From Chicago. The Geek might even paraphrase one of the Commander Guy's less felicitous phrases, "Bring him on!"
Friday, June 13, 2008
Condi Rice Keeps Carrying Neocon Water
Some years ago an expert on business practices coined the idea known as the "Peter Principle." The PP holds that individuals are routinely promoted one level above the one to which their inherent competence entitles them. In short, the last promotion is more likely to be a disaster than not.
Condileezza Rice, the current SecState, is two levels too high. She was out of her depth as National Security Advisor. She is even further beyond her level of ability as Secretary of State.
That's bad enough. Worse, she insists on showing just how gripless she is with respect to her current tasks. And, retrospectively, the ones with which she was previously entrusted.
Rice has an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. The article appears in the July/August 2008 edition with the title, "Rethinking the National Interest." On line it may be found at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87401/condoleezza-rice/rethinking-the-national-interest.html.
It is both a justification and a valedictory for the palpably failed neocon ninnie idea that democracy can be imposed from without upon the Mideast and Northwest Asia. Consider Dr Rice's position: "We recognize that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest. And in the broader Middle East, we recognize that freedom and democracy are the only ideas that can, over time, lead to just and lasting stability, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq."
In principle there is nothing objectionable with the sentiment. Democracy is good--in the abstract. Also democracy has the historically demonstrated potential to lead--over time--to social and political compacts which do provide for enhanced stability, economic progress and justice, as well as greater pluralism and the acceptance of diverse points of view.
History also shows that democratic processes can (and do) lead to aggressiveness on the part of a nation state, greater economic injustice, and other icky-poo manifestations such as ethnic cleansing and religious persecution.
Beyond that, and more to the point of Dr Rice's continued espousal of the neocon line is the simple fact that history has shown far more failed attempts to impose democracy from the outside by the use of force than successes. That point seems to have eluded her completely.
"The United States did not overthrow Saddam to democratize the Middle East. It did so to remove a long-standing threat to international security. But the administration was conscious of the goal of democratization in the aftermath of liberation. We discussed the question of whether we should be satisfied with the end of Saddam's rule and the rise of another strongman to replace him. The answer was no, and it was thus avowedly U.S. policy from the outset to try to support the Iraqis in building a democratic Iraq. It is important to remember that we did not overthrow Adolf Hitler to bring democracy to Germany either. But the United States believed that only a democratic Germany could ultimately anchor a lasting peace in Europe."
Dr Rice's misunderstanding of history is apparent at several points in this quote. First, Germany had a robust democracy--arguably too robust--during the Weimar Republic. That's how Hitler came to power--an election. (Yes, with some backroom games played on the senile President, von Hindenberg.) Secondly, at war's end the US, the UK and France were in occupation of the Western portion of Germany, arguably the part that was most open to democracy without excess. Third, the US was no more eager to democratize occupied Germany than the other three allies. The decision was forced upon us by the political, economic and international conflict realities of the rapidly blooming Cold War.
By this reasoning the invasion and occupation of Vera Cruz, Mexico should have resulted in a Wilsonian success at "teaching the Mexicans to elect good men." It doesn't stretch the logic of her argument to state that the US occupations of other Central American countries such as Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic should have had equally benign results. That they didn't is evident.
Now get a grip on her celebration of "our long standing partnerships in the Persian Gulf." As was laid out in a previous post, the Gulf "partners" are not democratic. Recall that Saudi Arabia ranked dead last in a rating of forty-eight members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The region is no more democratic today than it was when Saddam was blustering around in one or another of his ornate palaces.
Any way the pie is sliced, the taste is the same. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have any meaningful democratic tradition. Their histories have shown no proclivity toward nor understanding of democracy as the concept has emerged over centuries of poured blood and hard fought politics in the West.
The same absence of fertile soil for the fragile roots of democracy are evident in other regions of the world. As recent events in Kenya have proved and as the ongoing crisis in Zimbabwe amplify, the mere existence of elections does not make for functioning democracy. Recent elections in South America underscore the vast gulf which exists between the simple casting of ballots and the existence of democracy and its full array of accouterments.
There is no objection from the Geek to the idea of a people falling for a line of plausible election campaign pap and voting for a man such as Hugo Chavez who is an autocratic jefe grande at heart. That's one of the dangers of the form of democracy without the total substance.
What Dr Rice needs to keep in mind (or perhaps learn for the first time) is simple. Forms of government arise organically from the social, cultural and historical soil of a nation. This means in practice that outsiders can urge, nudge, hint and help in the development over time of democratic institutions and traditions. One thing they cannot do with any real hope of success is impose an alien institution by force of arms.
The neocons, whose water Dr Rice has carried for the past seven years, believed otherwise. As Dr Rice acknowledges there was never any thought of simply removing Saddam or the Taliban and allowing replacement by "another strongman." As the pre-2000 rhetoric of the Project For A New American Century made clear, our national interest would be best served by imposing democracy in the Mideast (and Northwest Asia.)
Dr Rice admits that we made "mistakes" in our handling of Iraq (and, the Geek must add, Afghanistan). She does not believe that those mistakes have done more than increase the "challenges" confronting us in fostering democracy in either of those countries.
In taking this position Dr Rice continues to carry the neocon ninnie water bucket. Invading Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and (hopefully) remove al-Qaeda as a threat were justifiable. The invasion of Iraq was not.
Saddam was a thoroughly unpleasant person. That was not reason enough to invade. The consequences of the invasion were not thought through as the Geek has demonstrated in many previous posts. The consequences are being made worse by the current negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement. They are being made worse by the continued sequelae of our "mistakes."
Dr Rice cannot acknowledge this far from halcyon reality. She must not. She owes her current status to her loyalty to the boss, the Decider Guy. For seven years she has carried water that should have been poured to the ground. For seven years she has tried mightily to justify the unjustifiable. For seven years she has stood at the center of the greatest foreign policy debacle in American history.
She can do it for a few more months. Perhaps there is another promotion in the offing.
Condileezza Rice, the current SecState, is two levels too high. She was out of her depth as National Security Advisor. She is even further beyond her level of ability as Secretary of State.
That's bad enough. Worse, she insists on showing just how gripless she is with respect to her current tasks. And, retrospectively, the ones with which she was previously entrusted.
Rice has an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. The article appears in the July/August 2008 edition with the title, "Rethinking the National Interest." On line it may be found at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87401/condoleezza-rice/rethinking-the-national-interest.html.
It is both a justification and a valedictory for the palpably failed neocon ninnie idea that democracy can be imposed from without upon the Mideast and Northwest Asia. Consider Dr Rice's position: "We recognize that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest. And in the broader Middle East, we recognize that freedom and democracy are the only ideas that can, over time, lead to just and lasting stability, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq."
In principle there is nothing objectionable with the sentiment. Democracy is good--in the abstract. Also democracy has the historically demonstrated potential to lead--over time--to social and political compacts which do provide for enhanced stability, economic progress and justice, as well as greater pluralism and the acceptance of diverse points of view.
History also shows that democratic processes can (and do) lead to aggressiveness on the part of a nation state, greater economic injustice, and other icky-poo manifestations such as ethnic cleansing and religious persecution.
Beyond that, and more to the point of Dr Rice's continued espousal of the neocon line is the simple fact that history has shown far more failed attempts to impose democracy from the outside by the use of force than successes. That point seems to have eluded her completely.
"The United States did not overthrow Saddam to democratize the Middle East. It did so to remove a long-standing threat to international security. But the administration was conscious of the goal of democratization in the aftermath of liberation. We discussed the question of whether we should be satisfied with the end of Saddam's rule and the rise of another strongman to replace him. The answer was no, and it was thus avowedly U.S. policy from the outset to try to support the Iraqis in building a democratic Iraq. It is important to remember that we did not overthrow Adolf Hitler to bring democracy to Germany either. But the United States believed that only a democratic Germany could ultimately anchor a lasting peace in Europe."
Dr Rice's misunderstanding of history is apparent at several points in this quote. First, Germany had a robust democracy--arguably too robust--during the Weimar Republic. That's how Hitler came to power--an election. (Yes, with some backroom games played on the senile President, von Hindenberg.) Secondly, at war's end the US, the UK and France were in occupation of the Western portion of Germany, arguably the part that was most open to democracy without excess. Third, the US was no more eager to democratize occupied Germany than the other three allies. The decision was forced upon us by the political, economic and international conflict realities of the rapidly blooming Cold War.
The democratization of Iraq and the democratization of the Middle East [are] linked. “As Iraq emerges from its difficulties, the impact of this transformation is being felt in the rest of the region… Our long-term partnership with Afghanistan and Iraq, to which we must remain deeply committed, our new relationships in Central Asia, and our long-standing partnerships in the Persian Gulf provide a solid geostrategic foundation for the generational work ahead in helping to bring about a better, more democratic, and more prosperous Middle East.
By this reasoning the invasion and occupation of Vera Cruz, Mexico should have resulted in a Wilsonian success at "teaching the Mexicans to elect good men." It doesn't stretch the logic of her argument to state that the US occupations of other Central American countries such as Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic should have had equally benign results. That they didn't is evident.
Now get a grip on her celebration of "our long standing partnerships in the Persian Gulf." As was laid out in a previous post, the Gulf "partners" are not democratic. Recall that Saudi Arabia ranked dead last in a rating of forty-eight members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The region is no more democratic today than it was when Saddam was blustering around in one or another of his ornate palaces.
Any way the pie is sliced, the taste is the same. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have any meaningful democratic tradition. Their histories have shown no proclivity toward nor understanding of democracy as the concept has emerged over centuries of poured blood and hard fought politics in the West.
The same absence of fertile soil for the fragile roots of democracy are evident in other regions of the world. As recent events in Kenya have proved and as the ongoing crisis in Zimbabwe amplify, the mere existence of elections does not make for functioning democracy. Recent elections in South America underscore the vast gulf which exists between the simple casting of ballots and the existence of democracy and its full array of accouterments.
There is no objection from the Geek to the idea of a people falling for a line of plausible election campaign pap and voting for a man such as Hugo Chavez who is an autocratic jefe grande at heart. That's one of the dangers of the form of democracy without the total substance.
What Dr Rice needs to keep in mind (or perhaps learn for the first time) is simple. Forms of government arise organically from the social, cultural and historical soil of a nation. This means in practice that outsiders can urge, nudge, hint and help in the development over time of democratic institutions and traditions. One thing they cannot do with any real hope of success is impose an alien institution by force of arms.
The neocons, whose water Dr Rice has carried for the past seven years, believed otherwise. As Dr Rice acknowledges there was never any thought of simply removing Saddam or the Taliban and allowing replacement by "another strongman." As the pre-2000 rhetoric of the Project For A New American Century made clear, our national interest would be best served by imposing democracy in the Mideast (and Northwest Asia.)
Dr Rice admits that we made "mistakes" in our handling of Iraq (and, the Geek must add, Afghanistan). She does not believe that those mistakes have done more than increase the "challenges" confronting us in fostering democracy in either of those countries.
In taking this position Dr Rice continues to carry the neocon ninnie water bucket. Invading Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and (hopefully) remove al-Qaeda as a threat were justifiable. The invasion of Iraq was not.
Saddam was a thoroughly unpleasant person. That was not reason enough to invade. The consequences of the invasion were not thought through as the Geek has demonstrated in many previous posts. The consequences are being made worse by the current negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement. They are being made worse by the continued sequelae of our "mistakes."
Dr Rice cannot acknowledge this far from halcyon reality. She must not. She owes her current status to her loyalty to the boss, the Decider Guy. For seven years she has carried water that should have been poured to the ground. For seven years she has tried mightily to justify the unjustifiable. For seven years she has stood at the center of the greatest foreign policy debacle in American history.
She can do it for a few more months. Perhaps there is another promotion in the offing.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Pakistan Is (A BIG) Part of the Problem--
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is most assuredly not part of the solution.
How's that again? Pakistan is our partner in the Global War on Terrorism. It is the key to defeating Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Right. Sure. So the current administration has said--repeatedly.
The happy talk out of the White House and other areas of D.C. are in the same league of accuracy as assurances more than five years ago that the Iraqis would welcome the US led invasion in the same way as the French welcomed the Liberation of Paris. Positive sentiments about Pakistan are signs of neocon ninny wishful thinking--not information. Not intelligence (in either the strategic/political sense or as applied to human thinking.)
The new, democratically elected civilian government of Pakistan is the process of acknowledging the existence of a Sharia based, Taliban controlled mini-state within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP.)
This is the first step on a very slippery slope. The fall of the first domino.
Yes. The Geek is invoking the Domino Theory. While it was never true in the days of our wars in Southeast Asia, it has a genuine power today.
Walk it though with me.
The often stated goal of the Taliban in the NWFP and FATA is the creation of a truly Islamic government in which all aspects of Sharia are completely, fully imposed. Check out the following site regarding this. http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD193308.
A nearly seventy-five percent majority of Pakistanis outside the NWFP and FATA support the imposition of Sharia throughout the country. That's right, three out of four Paks want Sharia.(http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf) Note that the support has been steady over time--although this earlier poll doesn't have solid numbers. (http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf)
The Pakistani politician Asif Ali Zardari has argued that his country and the US share "common values" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/29/it-is-time-for-reconciliation-zardari-says/.) In the Geek's estimate Zardari must have been consuming one or another of Afghanistan's most popular commodities when he said that.
Nothing could be further from the core values of the US than Sharia. Not only does Sharia--and Islam--reject the separation of religion and state which is fundimental here, it defines crimes and punishments that revolt most Americans.
Right now, even before the formation of the Islamist Ministate of FATA and NWFP, Pakistan uses Sharia and has a Sharia component of its Federal judiciary. The powers of the Sharia courts are impressive. (http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part7.ch3a.html.)
It is the Sharia aspect of Pakistani law which has resulted in both torture and death sentences for offenses against the dignity of Islam--or at least being a non-Muslim. Check it out for yourself. The Geekmo has limited himself to a couple of representative examples. You can find more on your own.
(http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=8855&size=A
http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/appeals_pakistan_ASA330122007)
The spreading of Sharia from the emerging Islamist ministate, which is not only the stronghold of Taliban but the most probable hiding place for Osama bin Ladin and the rest of the al-Qaeda command and control echelon, to all of Pakistan will prove as hard as getting water to flow downhill.
Now it is important to remember that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a nuclear power and did not sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. As of now, the Pakistanis have generated enough fissionable material to make sixty or so atomic weapons. This is a conservative estimate.(http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/feb03/southAsia2.asp)
Get a grip on Taliban's position regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Watch the clip. It's scary.(http://www.memritv.org/en/1778.htm) The Pakistani Taliban chieftain states the bomb is needed to use against Islam's enemies, "the Jews and the Christians." This is pretty specific. Taliban is not fighting the US because of American policies. It is fighting as Muslim against non-Muslim. Period.
Perhaps it is this Taliban stance considered with the not-far-off Islamic success in capturing the levers of power in Pakistan that encouraged Iran's Maximum Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to say last Friday that "terrorists" would soon acquire nuclear weapons. Even the gentle, multiculturally oriented New York Times acknowledged the Ayatollah's remark albeit in the last line of their story. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/world/middleeast/04iran.html?ref=middleeast.)
Even without the nuclear dimension, the Islamic ministate in FATA represents a threat to the US. Admiral Micheal Mullen made that clear during his current meeting with Pakistani defense chiefs. He also made it plain that the US would do nothing unilaterally or preemptively regarding the any action emerging from the mountains on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. See
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-uspak11-2008jun11,0,1456865.story. A different framing comes from Pakistan. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C11%5Cstory_11-6-2008_pg1_4
The inhibiting reality?
Admiral Mullen is nothing if not realistic. Any significant US action is precluded by the "instability" of the current Pakistani government. Of course, the word "instability" is both a monumental understatement and a codeword. (It is a codeword for "looming Islamist takeover.) Any action which resulted in more than a handful of dead bodies littering the rocky landscape of the FATA would result in a strengthening of the Islamist position in Pakistan.
The US is in a very sticky wicket in Pakistan. While the US government has been aware for decades about the Islamist orientation of the Pakistani people as well as critical elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence service, it has chosen to ignore the long term implications of the linkage between Islamism and threats to the US and other Western governments.
It is no longer possible to ignore Islamist Pakistan. The democratically elected parliament has called for an "international death penalty" for "blasphemy" against Islam. Blasphemy such as Danish cartoons and Dutch Internet videos. See http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C04%5C16%5Cstory_16-4-2008_pg7_6.
Backing this action, the Pakistani government, as previously posted, sent a high level delegation to meet with the European Union and demand an end to free speech under the threat of further terrorism directed against the EU member countries' embassies. The Pakistani ambassador to Norway has joined the threat brigade. (http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/06/norway-caricature-terror.html.)
In this fine piece of public diplomacy, the ambassador joined with his colleague in Copenhagen. See, http://www.cphpost.dk/get/107528.html.
Talk about blaming the victim!
The mess in Pakistan illustrates several critical lessons not yet learned by the US government or We the People. We damn well better learn them before time runs out.
First, be careful who you unthinkingly climb in political bed with. The Law of Unintended Consequences will apply sooner or later.
Second, small problems on the edge of what promises to be an easy war grow quickly into very large, nearly unsolvable ones. Again, the Law of Unintended (or Unforeseen) Consequences will apply--more likely sooner rather than later.
Third, know your enemy. You are more likely to be killed by the unknown enemy than the one you know.
It may be too late for the brain dead neocon rump of the current administration to learn these critical lessons. It is not too late for We the People to demand that the next administration demonstrate during the campaign that it has learned the lessons and will act appropriately upon them.
How's that again? Pakistan is our partner in the Global War on Terrorism. It is the key to defeating Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Right. Sure. So the current administration has said--repeatedly.
The happy talk out of the White House and other areas of D.C. are in the same league of accuracy as assurances more than five years ago that the Iraqis would welcome the US led invasion in the same way as the French welcomed the Liberation of Paris. Positive sentiments about Pakistan are signs of neocon ninny wishful thinking--not information. Not intelligence (in either the strategic/political sense or as applied to human thinking.)
The new, democratically elected civilian government of Pakistan is the process of acknowledging the existence of a Sharia based, Taliban controlled mini-state within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP.)
This is the first step on a very slippery slope. The fall of the first domino.
Yes. The Geek is invoking the Domino Theory. While it was never true in the days of our wars in Southeast Asia, it has a genuine power today.
Walk it though with me.
The often stated goal of the Taliban in the NWFP and FATA is the creation of a truly Islamic government in which all aspects of Sharia are completely, fully imposed. Check out the following site regarding this. http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD193308.
A nearly seventy-five percent majority of Pakistanis outside the NWFP and FATA support the imposition of Sharia throughout the country. That's right, three out of four Paks want Sharia.(http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf) Note that the support has been steady over time--although this earlier poll doesn't have solid numbers. (http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf)
The Pakistani politician Asif Ali Zardari has argued that his country and the US share "common values" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/29/it-is-time-for-reconciliation-zardari-says/.) In the Geek's estimate Zardari must have been consuming one or another of Afghanistan's most popular commodities when he said that.
Nothing could be further from the core values of the US than Sharia. Not only does Sharia--and Islam--reject the separation of religion and state which is fundimental here, it defines crimes and punishments that revolt most Americans.
Right now, even before the formation of the Islamist Ministate of FATA and NWFP, Pakistan uses Sharia and has a Sharia component of its Federal judiciary. The powers of the Sharia courts are impressive. (http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part7.ch3a.html.)
It is the Sharia aspect of Pakistani law which has resulted in both torture and death sentences for offenses against the dignity of Islam--or at least being a non-Muslim. Check it out for yourself. The Geekmo has limited himself to a couple of representative examples. You can find more on your own.
(http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=8855&size=A
http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/appeals_pakistan_ASA330122007)
The spreading of Sharia from the emerging Islamist ministate, which is not only the stronghold of Taliban but the most probable hiding place for Osama bin Ladin and the rest of the al-Qaeda command and control echelon, to all of Pakistan will prove as hard as getting water to flow downhill.
Now it is important to remember that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a nuclear power and did not sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. As of now, the Pakistanis have generated enough fissionable material to make sixty or so atomic weapons. This is a conservative estimate.(http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/feb03/southAsia2.asp)
Get a grip on Taliban's position regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Watch the clip. It's scary.(http://www.memritv.org/en/1778.htm) The Pakistani Taliban chieftain states the bomb is needed to use against Islam's enemies, "the Jews and the Christians." This is pretty specific. Taliban is not fighting the US because of American policies. It is fighting as Muslim against non-Muslim. Period.
Perhaps it is this Taliban stance considered with the not-far-off Islamic success in capturing the levers of power in Pakistan that encouraged Iran's Maximum Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to say last Friday that "terrorists" would soon acquire nuclear weapons. Even the gentle, multiculturally oriented New York Times acknowledged the Ayatollah's remark albeit in the last line of their story. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/world/middleeast/04iran.html?ref=middleeast.)
Even without the nuclear dimension, the Islamic ministate in FATA represents a threat to the US. Admiral Micheal Mullen made that clear during his current meeting with Pakistani defense chiefs. He also made it plain that the US would do nothing unilaterally or preemptively regarding the any action emerging from the mountains on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. See
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-uspak11-2008jun11,0,1456865.story. A different framing comes from Pakistan. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C11%5Cstory_11-6-2008_pg1_4
The inhibiting reality?
Admiral Mullen is nothing if not realistic. Any significant US action is precluded by the "instability" of the current Pakistani government. Of course, the word "instability" is both a monumental understatement and a codeword. (It is a codeword for "looming Islamist takeover.) Any action which resulted in more than a handful of dead bodies littering the rocky landscape of the FATA would result in a strengthening of the Islamist position in Pakistan.
The US is in a very sticky wicket in Pakistan. While the US government has been aware for decades about the Islamist orientation of the Pakistani people as well as critical elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence service, it has chosen to ignore the long term implications of the linkage between Islamism and threats to the US and other Western governments.
It is no longer possible to ignore Islamist Pakistan. The democratically elected parliament has called for an "international death penalty" for "blasphemy" against Islam. Blasphemy such as Danish cartoons and Dutch Internet videos. See http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C04%5C16%5Cstory_16-4-2008_pg7_6.
Backing this action, the Pakistani government, as previously posted, sent a high level delegation to meet with the European Union and demand an end to free speech under the threat of further terrorism directed against the EU member countries' embassies. The Pakistani ambassador to Norway has joined the threat brigade. (http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/06/norway-caricature-terror.html.)
In this fine piece of public diplomacy, the ambassador joined with his colleague in Copenhagen. See, http://www.cphpost.dk/get/107528.html.
Talk about blaming the victim!
The mess in Pakistan illustrates several critical lessons not yet learned by the US government or We the People. We damn well better learn them before time runs out.
First, be careful who you unthinkingly climb in political bed with. The Law of Unintended Consequences will apply sooner or later.
Second, small problems on the edge of what promises to be an easy war grow quickly into very large, nearly unsolvable ones. Again, the Law of Unintended (or Unforeseen) Consequences will apply--more likely sooner rather than later.
Third, know your enemy. You are more likely to be killed by the unknown enemy than the one you know.
It may be too late for the brain dead neocon rump of the current administration to learn these critical lessons. It is not too late for We the People to demand that the next administration demonstrate during the campaign that it has learned the lessons and will act appropriately upon them.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
What Great Democratic Buddies We Have!
The neocon ninnies stage managed our invasion of Iraq in order to promote and foster democracy throughout the Mideast. That's a given. At least the majority of rightwingers agree that our adventure in regime change was a well intended move to oust an obnoxious dictator and install liberal, pluralistic democracy in his place.
There is no denying that the Mideast is a place long on violence and violent rhetoric but very short on either democracy or human rights.
The same can be said of many Muslim inhabited countries regardless of the region. A recent study tempts the reader to conclude that Islam and democracy or human rights are incompatible, even mutually exclusive.
The same study shows that most of our "key" Islamic "allies" in the Global War on Terrorism are not only undemocratic, but less democratic than our current bete noir, Iran.
Take a good, long look at http://www.meforum.org/article/1921. The authors, like the publisher, have no evident political agenda. They give every methodological and analytical appearance of seeking a reasonable approximation of an accurate description.
The study examines forty-eight members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for which adequate, uniform data were available covering the years 2006-2007. Comparisons of per capita GDP/GNP with military expenditures and the several factors comprising the Status of Democracy Index (SDI) were made. This exercise allowed the grouping of countries into one of several categories such as "high GDP-high military expenditure," "high GDP-low military expenditure."
In addition the study ranked the forty-eight countries in terms of their ratings according to the SDI. Now to cut to the chase--get a grip on it.
Coming in at number forty-eight, dead last, was our good ally and drinking (coffee only, remember they're Muslims) buddy--Saudi Arabia.
That's right, the feudal autocracy of the sands quite unshockingly brought up the rear. Equally unsurprising was its inclusion in the group of "high GDP-high military expenditures" states.
Saudi Arabia achieved a percentile score on the SDI of 13.8. Coming in next to The Kingdom of the Two Mosques in a tie for forty-sixth were Chad and (drum roll, please) Pakistan, both with an index rating of 19.4 percent.
Chad is a desolate expanse of desert undergoing significant civil strife. Pakistan is our most critical "ally" in the efforts against both al-Qaeda and Taliban. Although Pakistan's rating would be improved by the recent parliamentary elections, it still would rank near the bottom among the OIC Forty-eight.
In comparison consider Iran. The Tehran mullahocracy is rated in the study to occupy slot number forty-two with an Index percentage of twenty-five. That stinks on an absolute scale, but looks good next to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
(Kind of makes one wonder.)
Overall in the Mideast and North Africa only four countries rank above fifty percent on the SDI and one of those, Lebanon, meets more the appearance than the reality of democracy given the rapidity and effectiveness by which an armed band, Hezbollah, could control the processes of government.
Like Lebanon, both Algeria and Egypt rank above the half way point. And, again like Lebanon, the appearance is more than the substance.
Among other key US "allies" in the region the portrait of democracy is not much more encouraging than that given by Saudi Arabia. The United Arab Emirates ranks at thirty-seven. Bahrain comes in at number thirty-three. Oman and Qatar are tied at the thirty slot. Only Kuwait comes in near the midpoint. That country, which owes its existence as an independent state to the US, is ranked at number twenty-five with a SDI of 44.4%.
All of these oligarchies spend a good chunk of their not insubstantial GDP's on their military forces. This leads to another unshocking conclusion: non-democratic states regardless of GDP spend money preferentially on weapons and those who use them.
The same may be said for countries which are not members of the OIC, but the fact remains that few nations within the OIC ambit exhibit any meaningful, real aspect of democracy with its inherent respect for human rights such as speech, religion, and the vote.
From this, it is tempting to speculate that the ideology contained within Islam is incompatible with democracy, an open society or the panoply of human rights.
The Geek, given to keeping in mind the history of Islamic societies and polities, has a damn tough time not giving in to that temptation.
There is no denying that the Mideast is a place long on violence and violent rhetoric but very short on either democracy or human rights.
The same can be said of many Muslim inhabited countries regardless of the region. A recent study tempts the reader to conclude that Islam and democracy or human rights are incompatible, even mutually exclusive.
The same study shows that most of our "key" Islamic "allies" in the Global War on Terrorism are not only undemocratic, but less democratic than our current bete noir, Iran.
Take a good, long look at http://www.meforum.org/article/1921. The authors, like the publisher, have no evident political agenda. They give every methodological and analytical appearance of seeking a reasonable approximation of an accurate description.
The study examines forty-eight members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for which adequate, uniform data were available covering the years 2006-2007. Comparisons of per capita GDP/GNP with military expenditures and the several factors comprising the Status of Democracy Index (SDI) were made. This exercise allowed the grouping of countries into one of several categories such as "high GDP-high military expenditure," "high GDP-low military expenditure."
In addition the study ranked the forty-eight countries in terms of their ratings according to the SDI. Now to cut to the chase--get a grip on it.
Coming in at number forty-eight, dead last, was our good ally and drinking (coffee only, remember they're Muslims) buddy--Saudi Arabia.
That's right, the feudal autocracy of the sands quite unshockingly brought up the rear. Equally unsurprising was its inclusion in the group of "high GDP-high military expenditures" states.
Saudi Arabia achieved a percentile score on the SDI of 13.8. Coming in next to The Kingdom of the Two Mosques in a tie for forty-sixth were Chad and (drum roll, please) Pakistan, both with an index rating of 19.4 percent.
Chad is a desolate expanse of desert undergoing significant civil strife. Pakistan is our most critical "ally" in the efforts against both al-Qaeda and Taliban. Although Pakistan's rating would be improved by the recent parliamentary elections, it still would rank near the bottom among the OIC Forty-eight.
In comparison consider Iran. The Tehran mullahocracy is rated in the study to occupy slot number forty-two with an Index percentage of twenty-five. That stinks on an absolute scale, but looks good next to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
(Kind of makes one wonder.)
Overall in the Mideast and North Africa only four countries rank above fifty percent on the SDI and one of those, Lebanon, meets more the appearance than the reality of democracy given the rapidity and effectiveness by which an armed band, Hezbollah, could control the processes of government.
Like Lebanon, both Algeria and Egypt rank above the half way point. And, again like Lebanon, the appearance is more than the substance.
Among other key US "allies" in the region the portrait of democracy is not much more encouraging than that given by Saudi Arabia. The United Arab Emirates ranks at thirty-seven. Bahrain comes in at number thirty-three. Oman and Qatar are tied at the thirty slot. Only Kuwait comes in near the midpoint. That country, which owes its existence as an independent state to the US, is ranked at number twenty-five with a SDI of 44.4%.
All of these oligarchies spend a good chunk of their not insubstantial GDP's on their military forces. This leads to another unshocking conclusion: non-democratic states regardless of GDP spend money preferentially on weapons and those who use them.
The same may be said for countries which are not members of the OIC, but the fact remains that few nations within the OIC ambit exhibit any meaningful, real aspect of democracy with its inherent respect for human rights such as speech, religion, and the vote.
From this, it is tempting to speculate that the ideology contained within Islam is incompatible with democracy, an open society or the panoply of human rights.
The Geek, given to keeping in mind the history of Islamic societies and polities, has a damn tough time not giving in to that temptation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)