Pakistan on The Huffington Post

William Bradley: Tony Blair's Cautionary Tale For Obama

2009-11-24T11:58:47Z

Tony Blair's recent travails, last week over his bid to become the first president of the European Union and today with the start of Britain's Iraq War inquiry, stand as something of a cautionary tale for President Barack Obama. Blair was long the favorite to become the first president of the European Union. But in the end, pilloried on the left for his leading role in the Iraq War and still not supported by the right, he was supplanted by a little-known Belgian bureaucrat.

Just as America had Obamamania in 2008, Britain had Blairmania in 1997. "Things Can Only Get Better" blared, as it were, the ubiquitous Blair campaign song.

Tony Blair's farewell speech.

"Everybody voted for him. He wasn't a politician; he was a craze." That's how the title character puts it in the deliciously vicious roman a clef novel by former Blair friend Robert Harris, The Ghost (as in ghostwriter of the ex-prime minister's memoirs), which was was being made into a movie by Roman Polanski when he was arrested in Switzerland.

Blair ushered in an era of "Cool Britannia," which many critics say morphed into Cruel Britannia as he swapped his famous friendship with Bill Clinton for an infamous friendship with George W. Bush.

As Britain's Opposition Leader in 1994, Blair, along with Clinton, swiftly emerged as a chief advocate of the the global "Third Way," between the sclerotic sort of socialism which made Labour a consistent loser in Britain and a hyper-capitalism which hollowed out communities. With Blair, Labour became New Labour, a remade force able to take on the reigning Conservatives. Well, more than able to take on the Tories. Able to shatter them, actually, which Blair proceeded to do.

"Things Can Only Get Better," the ubiquitous campaign song of Tony Blair and New Labour.

Blair reinvented a moribund political party, won three national elections (the only Labour politician to do so) beginning with his landslide win in 1997 -- the largest in 165 years -- and quickly became a very major world figure.

Under Blair, Britain "modernised" as "Cool Britannia," and indicators on the economy, the environment, and crime improved for his decade-plus as British prime minister. He made Britain a more inclusive society. And he settled the bloody, decades long conflict in Northern Ireland. Blair and Clinton formed a strong working partnership as Blair became a global player.

Fatefully, Blair became quite the interventionist abroad. He took Britain to war, in one form or another, five times. First when he and Clinton decided to conduct an air war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq when the Iraqi dictator proved intransigent on weapons inspections and other matters. Next when, at Blair's determined instigation, NATO launched an air war to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and bring down the Serbian dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic. Then Blair intervened in the African nation of Sierra Leone, with British forces landing to end a brutal civil war.

Then came 9/11, and Blair, who had formed an unlikely friendship with George W. Bush, was quick to spring to America's side. British resources, notably intelligence, and forces, including its crack special ops forces, were instrumental in helping America overthrow the Taliban's theocratic dictatorship in Afghanistan and rout Al Qaeda from its redoubt.

Bush and Blair address the people of Iraq as the invasion begins.

Then came Iraq. The war far too far, to borrow a phrase and change it a bit. By 2002, it was apparent that Tony Blair had developed a taste for intervention and for turning out dictators, as well as a commitment to his alliance with the US in the 9/11-derived war on terror. Iraq was next on the agenda of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the coterie of neoconservative theorists around them, as it had been all along. Initially skeptical about an Iraq invasion, Blair was caught up in the move. Blair and his people believed that he had major influence over Bush, having banked a great deal of credit with the Afghanistan operation, intel/special ops moves around the world, and world diplomacy in the UN and elsewhere. It turned out that, despite all that and their personal friendship, he did not.

Saddam Hussein was unpopular in much of the Arab world and was a largely secular dictator who was actually oppressing much of his population, especially the Shia. But the Bush/Cheney team, as we've seen, closely associated with various charlatans in the Iraqi exile community and elsewhere, had a totally unrealistic view of how Iraq might be secured and governed in the aftermath of victory in a conventional war. Blair wanted a strong UN role in the governance of Iraq, but Cheney and his allies worked assiduously to undermine Blair's influence with Bush on that and other matters. Such as engagement with Iran and Syria, which Blair has always advocated. To the hardline neoconservatives, Blair, actually a man of the center-left, was a socialist who did not share their view of a civilizational war, and that was that.

A BBC retrospective on Blair.

The other big problem was how to sell an Iraq war. Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator, but that hardly made him unique in the world. His links with Al Qaeda were slight, and there was no serious evidence linking him to the 9/11 attacks on Washington and New York, despite what Dick Cheney and the neocons said. You couldn't actually say that we were invading Iraq for its oil. Which, of course, never did pay for the occupation, a later claim of Donald Rumsfeld's. That left WMD (weapons of mass destruction).

Which Saddam Hussein, for all his understandable bluster, didn't really have. He maintained the facade of having them -- consistently blocking weapons inspections -- to maintain fear and order within and to seem more powerful to other countries. Incidentally, merely because an irritating country says it can do things doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. Otherwise, we would believe that North Korea was about to take over the world. It's the job of intelligence services and their decision-making masters in government to determine what is bullshit and act accordingly.

But Bush and Cheney pushed the myth of Iraqi WMD, and its supposedly imminent threat. Because it served their nitwit purpose to do so. Blair lent his credibility to this nonsense and took Britain to war. A war which, as we saw at the Azores Summit prior to the invasion, Blair was far better at explaining and selling than was the falteringly inarticulate Bsh.

A war which played right into Al Qaeda's hands, which wanted the West tied down in military operations in the middle of the Islamic world, both to drain America's resources and to inflame a new generation of jihadists. A war which provided Iran with the opening to become the great power of the region, an ambition which has not yet come to fruition.

A war which hamstrung Tony Blair, festooning his once glittering reputation with streamers of screaming charges of "B.Liar," that he not only used his very considerable powers of persuasion to help sell an unsellable war but also facilitated the torture of British citizens at the hands of CIA and Pakistani interrogators.

The Ghost teaser trailer.

Could something like this happen to Barack Obama? Could he pin America down in another faraway quagmire, going far beyond what is needed to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become the base for "The Base," Al Qaeda? Could he see his shining stand against torture slide into a de facto policy of torture?

Blair, who never officially announced his candidacy for the European presidency, made several late moves to try to find his way through the complex thicket of European politics, with calls to various leaders and a speech in Switzerland where he appealed to the continent's dominant center-right faction by warning against too much governmental intervention to overcome the global recession.

But it didn't work. Blair was too big a figure for some of the smaller countries and for some leaders of the larger countries with global aspirations of their own; too controversial for the left and too left for the right. And so the old political dictum that you can't beat somebody with nobody was proved wrong, at least in this instance.

He continues as special Mideast envoy of the Quartet (America, Britain, Russia, and the European Union). But the qestion of Israel and Palestine continues to be largely intractable. His supposed ally, Secretary of State Condi Rice imagined she would negotiate a peace -- at which she clearly failed -- and pushed Blair off to the building up of the Palestinian Authority. Which is only a fraction of the equation. A friend who visited the region last week said that the Israeli and Palestinian leaders she saw barely mentioned Tony Blair.

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

Blackwater's Secret War In Pakistan

2009-11-23T18:11:28Z

At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, "snatch and grabs" of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan, an investigation by The Nation has found. The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help run a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes, according to a well-placed source within the US military intelligence apparatus.

Betwa Sharma: Forbidden Rituals At The Hajj

2009-11-23T13:58:00Z

A Hajj first timer, Saju, is pissed about getting written permission from her husband to make the sacred journey to Mecca. “You don’t ask your husband for anything these days,” she says, soft-spoken and indignant. “It’s unheard of.”

Since Shiites have no restriction on single women going for the Hajj, the 52-year-old homemaker from Iran is less than pleased to know that Saudi Arabia requires all women pilgrims below the age of 45 to be accompanied by a male relative.

As Saju did her homework, she also found out that certain rituals of her sect were not acceptable in the holy land. “There are some things that you simply cannot do…..word gets around about people who have gotten into trouble,” she says.

To learn more, Saju headed to an Islamic Center in New York City where Imam Sawani advises travelers about certain customs that need to be practiced differently or discreetly.

“Do not break the rules or they will send you back and we will all go to prison,” the religious leader cautions, half-jokingly, but the seriousness is not lost.

The Sunnis reject several Shiite practices that involve revering the Prophet’s family and their saints. The strict interpretation of Koran relied on by the Saudis is even less tolerant of many of the Shiite beliefs that are denounced as polytheism.

At the center of the long list of “dos and don’ts” is the prohibition on the use of the Turbah, which is a disc made of clay, stone or wood that Shiites put under their forehead in prayer because prostrating on any artificial material is not allowed.

The circular tablets lies at the heart of their faith as it is made from the soil of the battlefield of Karbala in Iraq where Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and the revered martyr of the Shiite, was killed by his enemies in a feud of succession.

The Sunnis liken praying to the stone as a form of idol worship. An Islamic scholar from Tanzania, Haafiz, who has gone for the Hajj ten times, recalls how the sacred stone and certain religious books are confiscated at the airport.

“It’s terrible, they just pick it up and throw it in a dustbin,” he says. “You can’t even use it in a hotel because if someone reports you to the Mutawa (religious police) then you’ve had it.”

Imam Sawani’s first response to whether the stone should be carried is, “I would not recommend it.” Later, the Imam from Iraq reveals that Hajjis manage to sneak in Turbah’s the size of a dime or camouflaged in a special mat. “Pick it up each time you raise your head,” he warns.

A mother of two, Aaliya, 33, related how she concealed her Turbah as a tiny rosary. “My prayer is not complete without it and so I had to take the risk,” she says. “I feel like when I set my mind to it… I’m there at Karbala.”

Another habit that the Shiites have to guard against is touching and kissing any walls or shrines. A Hajj guide from Pakistan, Syed, describes pilgrims being beaten by guards for reciting incantations near the Kaaba -a towering black cube at the center of the Grand Mosque that all Muslims across nations turn to face when praying.

“People travel from far away to see this and they cry out of love but if you cry…they say this is ‘Kuffar’(against Islam)…stop crying,” says Syed. In many of their prayers, Shiites condemn historical and religious figures that they hold responsible for grave atrocities committed against the Prophet’s family in the years following his death. The Sunnis who are the larger sect consider this blasphemous.

Stringent checks are observed at the mosque where the Prophet is buried, and the cemetery called Jannatul Baqee where rest members of his kin and companions. Both are in Medina where almost all Shiites go before heading to Mecca.

The Baqee is closed to women, and several of its shrines have been destroyed by the ruling royal family of Saudi Arabia who practice the severest form of Islam called Wahhabism, which leads them to believe that paying homage at the cemetery is akin to grave-worshipping.

“You touch the graves and immediately someone will pounce on you,” says Haafiz who remembers each grave being surrounded by long barriers and a guard. On loudspeakers, the authorities warn against “Bid’ah” (innovation) - something not practiced at the time of the Prophet.

Veteran Hajjis tell tales of women inviting trouble at the Prophet’s mosque where they loudly praise their messenger of God and pay scant attention to angry objections by the beefy guards.

“Sometimes they even ululate and this really infuriates the guards.” says Haafiz. “They really get roughed up but they’re in such an emotional state that they don’t care.”

The professor admits to having thrown caution to the wind quite a few times. Back in 1987, he asked friends to “accidentally” push him very close to the mausoleum of the Prophet. Unfortunately, the security wised up to their ploy.

“This guard whipped me with his scarf but I managed to kiss the shrine,” he says, laughing. “It is such a humiliation ….. I’m a forty year old man…come on.”

Different prayer timings between the two sects is another anomaly that needs to be worked out during the Hajj. The call to prayer for the Shiites is approximately ten minutes after the Sunnis.

Since many Sunnis refuse to be led in prayer by a Shiite Imam, there are Shiites who protest against following a Sunni Imam. During the Hajj, however, many clerics advise Shiites to follow their host.

“You can say your own prayers individually later but you must bow at the same time as everyone else,” Imam Sawani emphasizes. “It is a symbol of unity.”

This is easier said than done for Saju who is considering a quick stop at the Sunni mosque to practice before leaving. “I can’t concentrate on my prayer if I’m so worried about when to lower and raise my head,” she says looking flustered while her husband patiently goes over the rules again. “It’s not that difficult jaan (dear),” he says.

Every pilgrim has a unique story about whether these constrains were a major problem or minor inconvenience. “When all these rules do not let you fulfill your religious duties and makes you feel guilty then it is more than an inconvenience,” says Haafiz.

To comfort his group, Syed tells them not to feel guilty about foregoing a few obligations as it can be viewed as Taqiyyah, which means temporarily hiding one’s faith if you’re scared for your life, dignity and property.

“If I use a clay stone to prostrate but I fear of it being kicked….. then it is okay to hide it if I know it will be disrespected,” he explains.

Although, when Alidina thinks of his ten trips to the Hajj, the story that he loves to tell is of a Saudi guard who quietly placed a Turbah under his forehead as he prostrated not in Mecca but in a smaller mosque in the suburbs of Medina.

“When I said my prayer the man just picked it up and disappeared,” he says.

Peter Bosshard: Would You Like to Build This Dam (With a Little Bribe)?

2009-11-23T01:47:55Z

Pakistan’s government is currently considering building the Hingol Dam, a $400 million irrigation dam in the mountains of Balochistan Province. The project is controversial because it would impact a national park and a centuries-old temple which is revered by the region’s Hindu population. A few weeks ago, I got an e-mail from an engineering firm in Pakistan. Out of the blue, the firm offered me the contract to build the Hingol Dam and four similar projects. The offer came as a surprise because even though I am a dam expert, I work for an environmental organization, have never built a dam before, and am quite skeptical of such projects.

Perplexed, I wrote back asking for more information. The engineering firm, which lists major international companies among its customers, told me they could get the contract for a modest commission, or by forming a joint venture with me. “Please be informed that we can win this tender for you if you are interested,” the firm’s chief executive assured me. When I asked how exactly this would work, he told me that he would prefer to discuss the details on the phone.

At this difficult time, a lucrative contract would come handy. I didn’t take the bait, but was intrigued to see evidence of corruption in the act, after I had written about this topic for many years. I knew that the Hingol contract was only the tip of an iceberg. According to Transparency International, public works are the world’s most corrupt sector – more corrupt than even oil or arms trade –, and Pakistan’s water sector is particularly affected by fraudulent practices.

Pakistan has the world’s largest contingent irrigation system. The country is criss-crossed by large canals, drainage highways and some of the world’s biggest dams. Yet the system is in deep crisis. More than 60 percent of the irrigation water is lost before it reaches the roots, and average crop yields are much lower than in neighboring India. Because so much water is diverted, the mighty Indus no longer reaches the sea most of the time, and the Indus Delta is eaten away by coastal erosion. Almost 5,000 square kilometers of arable land have been lost to the sea, while the waste of water causes massive problems of waterlogging and salinization further upstream.

Plugging the leaks of this wasteful system would make more sense for farmers, tax-payers and the environment than building new dams and canals. Yet this is not happening – because of corruption. Pakistan’s water authority is considered to be one of the country’s most corrupt institutions. Top positions are sold at a high price, and the officials need to recoup the purchase of their positions through kickbacks. They can do so by offering lucrative contracts such as the Hingol Dam, not through water conservation measures and other efficiency improvements. The poor farmers who sit at the end of the leaky canals and the environment pay the price for this perverse system.

Peter Eigen, the founder of Transparency International, says that such a perverse allocation of resources is a global problem in the infrastructure sector. “Corrupt government officials steer social and economic development towards large capital-intensive infrastructure projects that provide fertile ground for corruption,” Eigen wrote in a report which I had the chance to co-author. And the independent World Commission on Dams noted: “Decision-makers may be inclined to favor large infrastructure as they provide opportunities for personal enrichment not afforded by smaller or more diffuse alternatives. The consequences frequently directly affect the poor and the environment.”

Now that I have seen a glimpse of such corruption in practice, I am sure curious to find out who will eventually get the Hingol Dam contract.

Pakistan: 8 Militants Killed In Reported US Strike

2009-11-20T08:06:15Z

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A security guard has been wounded in an explosion outside the office of a non-governmental organization in the main city in northwestern Pakistan.

Police chief Liaquat Ali Khan says Saturday's explosion occurred near the office's perimeter wall at about 7 a.m. in Peshawar.

Jim Wallis: Build, Don't Destroy in Afghanistan: An Open Letter to President Obama

2009-11-19T15:20:37Z

Already, thousands of our readers have signed a letter and contacted the White House urging a new way forward in Afghanistan. Today, Sojourners staff will be meeting with White House officials to hand-deliver the following letter. I encourage you to read it and to endorse this message if you have not done so already. Support for a new way forward is growing. InterAction, a coalition of 187 non-governmental relief and development organizations focused on the world's poorest and most vulnerable people, has now issued a letter of support for this new approach that you can read here. As the President's decision draws near, please, as always, pray for peace.

Dear Mr. President,

In your speech to the United Nations General Assembly this fall, you eloquently stated one of your core beliefs, that while too often peace remains a distant dream:

We can either accept that outcome as inevitable, and tolerate constant and crippling conflict, or we can recognize that the yearning for peace is universal, and reassert our resolve to end conflicts around the world. ... For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings -- the belief that the future belongs to those who would build and not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end and a new day can begin.

We share that belief, and urge you to make it your guiding principle in Afghanistan. We speak not as military or political strategists, but as religious leaders seeking to faithfully apply our moral values to this most crucial issue. We have been watching, listening, and praying as the political arguments and counter-arguments about what to do in Afghanistan fill the air. We commend you for taking time to make your decisions in such an important matter which will affect the lives of so many.

We believe that after eight years of war we need a whole new approach in Afghanistan. And we respectfully and prayerfully suggest to you a different strategy that we would name: the humanitarian and development surge.

First, lead with what we know works -- massive humanitarian assistance and sustainable development. We know that what can re-build a broken nation; inspire confidence, trust, and hope among its people; and undermine the appeal of terrorism is massive humanitarian assistance and sustainable economic development. And it costs less -- far less -- than continued war.

Many of us as religious leaders are deeply involved with the people and organizations who know places like Afghanistan the best; and they are neither the military nor the private contractors who increasingly dominate U.S. foreign policy in war-torn regions. Rather they are the NGOs, both faith-based and secular, doing relief and development work which have been there for years, have become quite indigenous, and are much more trusted by the people of the country than are the U.S. military. We've also learned that it is vitally important that humanitarian and development assistance should be provided, as much as possible, by independent civilian and non-governmental organizations, both international and local-- rather than using aid as a government adjunct to military operations. Another way to say it is that the best face of America to the world is a baseball hat and not a helmet.

Of course, we recognize that effective development needs security, and when we have massively intervened in a country as much as the U.S. has in Afghanistan, we can't responsibly just walk away -- as has tragically happened to that country in the past. But we should lead with economic development now, starting in areas that are secure with the plan of growing the transformation from there and providing only the security necessary to protect the strategic rebuilding of the country. That kind of peacekeeping security might better attract the international involvement we so desperately need in Afghanistan, both from Europe and even from Arab and Muslim countries. Let the non-military strategies lead the way, rather than the other way around. Let us not make aid and development another weapon of war, by tying it so closely to the military; but rather provide the security support needed for the development work to succeed--led by both respected and well-established international organizations with strong local connections.

Second, we feel deeply about the ethical and moral issues that are at stake in our decisions about future policy in Afghanistan --legitimately protecting Americans from further terrorism, protecting the lives of American servicemen and women, protecting the Afghan people from the collateral damage of war, defending women from the Taliban, genuinely supporting democracy and, of course, saving innocent lives from the collateral damage of war -- to name a few.

We also strongly recommend a diplomatic surge. We urge you to continue pursuing political and diplomatic solutions to these complicated issues, promoting stable governance in Afghanistan and Pakistan, seeking political integration of those elements of the Taliban that are willing to cooperate in preventing the use of their territory for launching terrorist strikes, engaging with the United Nations and other states in the region to build diplomatic and economic support for regional stabilization and economic development, as well as international policing to prevent the spread of extremists and the use of terror.

But Mr. President, as you deliberate on these momentous decisions, we are concerned that the discussion in Washington, D.C. is far too narrow, with only two points of view being seriously considered.

One strategy supports a robust strategy of counter-insurgency, requiring a substantial escalation of troops that would bring the total number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to as many as 100,000. Yet, this only increases the massive American footprint in that volatile country; which is now one of the primary causes of our problems there, and is clearly helping to fuel the insurgency. Add in a corrupt Afghan government, a highly decentralized society, and a physical terrain that has confounded every other occupier in history; and we find little reason to be hopeful about the prospects of military success through more escalation.

The other prefers counter-terrorism, relying on precision targeting technology to apply military pressure on the most dangerous and extreme operatives who are the greatest threat to us. Our counter-terrorist missiles and unmanned drones may cost less in American lives and treasure, but they have very significant political and moral costs. In war, a laser-like focus is seldom possible, often leading to tragic results in untended consequences and innocent casualties. The collateral damage of our technological war has already been great, resulting in many civilian deaths, further alienating the populace and, inadvertently, producing even more angry young recruits for terrorism.

And we fear the solution that may be emerging in Washington could be a confused combination of the two strategies, bringing us the worst of both worlds.

We humbly suggest it is time for a meeting at the White House with both American religious leaders and the heads of the leading international development agencies, some of whom have been in Afghanistan for years, with many indigenous employees and partners, who are trusted by the people of the country. These organizations can contribute their experience and wisdom on what U.S. policy would best work, and what kind of security they would need to really do the kind of development in Afghanistan that is most needed. Along with the military and political advice you are receiving, this input is crucial to your decision. And it is time, perhaps for the first time, for an on-going moral and ethical conversation between government and the faith community about the moral implications of our policy decisions.

Mr. President, we assure you that in taking the approach of effective aid and development, and real engagement with the moral issues that confront us in Afghanistan, you will have our support. As always, you are in our prayers as you seek the right decisions to these most difficult questions and choices. We look forward to hearing from you.

Blessings,

Jim Wallis, President and CEO, Sojourners

Noel Castellanos, President, Christian Community Development Association

Rev. William J. Shaw, Pastor, White Rock Baptist Church, Philadelphia, PA

Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner, President, Skinner Leadership Institute

Rev. Rich Nathan, Pastor, Vineyard Church of Columbus

Thomas L. Jones, former chair, Social Justice and Peacemaking, Presbyterian Church USA

The Honorable Douglas W. Kmiec

Arturo Chavez, Ph.D., President and CEO, Mexican American Catholic College

Ingrid Mattson, President, The Islamic Society of North America

Dr. Anthony Campolo, President and Founder, Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education

Fred Davie, The Arcus Foundation

Diana Butler Bass, Author and Educator

Harry Knox, Silver Spring, Maryland

Brian D. McLaren, author, speaker, activist

Rev. Sharon Watkins, General Minister and President, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Rev. Alexia Salvatierra

Rev. Wes Granberg-Michaelson, Reformed Church in America

Thomas and Karen Getman, The Getman Group

Mubarak Awad, American University

Robin and Nancy Wainwright, Middle East Fellowship

Norm Nelson, Compassion Radio

Susheilla Mehta

+Click here to add your signature to this message to President Obama
+Tell your friends about this petition

Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening, Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

Pakistan Courthouse Bombing Kills 16 In Peshawar

2009-11-19T02:40:21Z

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A blast early Friday killed two police offers a day after a suicide bomber killed 19 people outside a courthouse in northwestern Pakistan, the latest attacks in an onslaught by Islamist militants retaliating against an army offensive near the Afghan border.

The bombings brought to eight the number of militant attacks in less than two weeks in and around Peshawar, the largest city in the northwest and the main gateway to the al-Qaida and Taliban-infested frontier region. The attacks have killed more than 80 people.

Pakistan's Success Against Taliban May Influence Obama's Afghan Troop Decision

2009-11-18T02:04:01Z

Success in this region, in the remote mountains near the Afghan border, could have a direct bearing on how many more American troops are ultimately sent to Afghanistan, and how long they must stay.

Mayhill Fowler: The New Strategy for Obama's War: Precision Power

2009-11-17T16:05:26Z

Barack Obama owns Afghanistan. If our President said it once he said it a hundred times in 2008 on the campaign trail: "We have to win in Afghanistan." He did not hedge. He did not say "do better" or "shape a clearer policy." We have to win in Afghanistan. Did he believe this? At the time, I concluded that he must -- otherwise why make such a bold declaration, in knowledge of the fates of other great powers that have tried and failed there? Now I am not so sure. Perhaps Candidate Obama misjudged the mood of the country in 2007-2008 and concluded, incorrectly, that like Democrats of past races he had to talk tough on foreign policy, whereas in fact Americans would have been (and still would be) just as happy and relieved to hear him bracket Iraq and Afghanistan as two ventures from which we need to extract ourselves as expeditiously as possible. Not to say that the majority of Americans, who prefer not to dwell upon a nasty possibility like a war against Islamic extremism, are right. Or that Barack Obama is wrong. But more and more -- really every day that he delays responding to General McChrystal's request for additional troops in Afghanistan -- President Obama is looking like a man trapped by his own words (ironic for a man with a reputation for speech) who has neither the conviction nor the will to execute them.

What would happen if we pulled out of Afghanistan? The proxy war between India and Pakistan there would go on. India would continue with its money and construction teams for buildings and roads to support Kabul. Helping the countryside insurgencies, Pakistan would continue to supply the Afghan Taliban. Afghanistan would settle into what it has always been: a geography of tribal loyalties and rivalries punctuated by the occasional city-state (Kabul, Kandahar, Herat) that historically has never wielded much power beyond its walls. Possibly, China would encroach, pushing over its short Afghan border, both to protect its considerable copper interests in Afghanistan and to counter Indian influence to the South. Over time, Iran would move, bringing Persian Herat into its sphere. From an American point of view, could we not live with these consequences? Yes, our prestige as a great power would take a considerable hit -- but that happened when we withdrew from Vietnam, and yet we survived. Meanwhile we would not be expending blood and treasure on a people who do not want us in their midst.

Here is the problem with that scenario. Pakistan. A large country with explosive growth -- already the second-largest Muslim population in the world -- that teeters on the verge of violent political change. If Pakistan falls to fundamentalist Islamic forces, then American national security is threatened. Even without taking Pakistan's nuclear capability into consideration, this is true. For a fundamentalist Pakistan threatens India, far beyond any dispute over Kashmir. Hindu extremists, Indian Muslim extremists--all would be enabled in a future that almost certainly promises serious sectarian, religious upheavals and adjustments for an India that in other ways is increasingly acculturated to and aligned with the values of Western democracy and commerce. In short, any march of religious zealotry through South Asia destabilizes a large chunk of world geography and therefore threatens us. China, for example, would respond with an even greater military build-up than the current provocative expansion of its deep-water fleet.

Pakistan is the reason why in the next week or so President Obama is going to commit more brigades to Afghanistan. (And once his Asia trip is done, how can he further delay the announcement of a necessity he must have acknowledged in his mind long ago?) But the President is going to pinpoint the uses to which these new troops can be put. He will describe some version of what John Kerry gave the Council on Foreign Relations when he returned from Afghanistan at the end of October: the need for "a smart counterinsurgency in a limited geographic area." The President will not detail the quid-pro-quo: the specific ways in which his administration is pressuring Hamid Karzai to contain the miasma of corruption in Kabul. But John Kerry's comment on October 26 that the men who run the most compromised ministries in Kabul will have to go tells us something. When Barack Obama makes this further commitment to Afghanistan while at the same time reining it in, we will have a new foreign policy. It is not soft power, for after all we will still be at war. Our Predator drones will hover over North and South Waziristan, despite the clamor from Pakistanis in the street. It is not smart power, for only history reveals whether choices made are foolish or wise. Our new foreign policy is what I call precision power.

At his October CFR talk, John Kerry showed the habit of mind that directs precision power. In answer to a question from Congresswoman Jane Harman about drones, Kerry said, "On the drones, I've had a number of discussions -- I mean, can't help but not have them, because they [Afghanis and Pakistanis] bring it up. But in truth, there is a distinction -- I hate to say this, but there really is a distinction between what you sometimes hear publicly and what you also hear privately. . . . I am convinced that it [the use of drones] is highly circumscribed now, very carefully controlled within a hierarchy of decision-making, significantly limited in its collateral damage, and profoundly successful in the impact it has had in putting al Qaeda on the run ... Fourteen of the top twenty al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated."

A disciplined agility, tough but flexible in the pros and cons, clarifying and ordering priorities, targeting the highest priority and then taking the blow-back -- this is the impetus behind precision power. In a time when we are increasingly aware that American funds and resources are limited, the Obama Administration is aiming multiple weapons, but with parsimony--hopefully with increasing invention and laser intensity--at circumscribed and carefully-defined targets. Hillary Clinton's visit to Pakistan earlier this month bore all the hallmarks of this new precision power. In an earlier piece, I described the ways in which her appearance as Secretary of State, from a public and therefore somewhat superficial perspective, went wrong. If we part the verbiage (hers and her hosts'), however, we can make out traces of the precision power propelling Mrs. Clinton's visit.

Precision power requires team effort. If hitting a small target is going to mean anything in solving a larger problem, aim must be true, concentration relentless and force continuously applied. Early November was Mrs. Clinton's first visit to Pakistan as Secretary of State; it was Special Representative Richard Holbrooke's sixth (if my count is correct). The Obama Administration is a team, and various members of the foreign policy team are bombarding Pakistan with their presence and constant reminders about the consequences of insurgency. Of course, eventually human nature may vitiate the force of group effort, if competing egos and agendas splinter the approach. But for now the strategy holds, as the importance of remarks from a senator (even Kerry) before a sedate gathering demonstrate.

Precision power demands accountability. For this new foreign policy, faith without works is dead. In other words, the United States will no longer trust Pakistan with the spending of our taxpayer dollars. There must be a transparency of expense and progress. Our largesse must produce measurable results. It is almost unbelievable -- but alas true -- that the unclassified budgets of the Bush Administration provided the Pakistani military $100 million a month in direct cash deposits without any demand for accountability, for example. The tradition of foreign aid going straight into another country's sovereign funds predates the Bush years, and skeptics expect the custom to continue. If precision power is going to work, however, future aid will increasingly be tied to aims, means and results. Secretary Clinton tightened the purse strings in the presence of the Pakistanis, who were none too pleased, of course. Even as she announced an additional 289.5 million dollars for Pakistan (on top of what is promised in the Kerry-Lugar bill), she warned of the imminent arrival of implementers for this aid. Mrs. Clinton told Pakistanis, for example, to expect a special "international energy coordinator," who reports directly to her, to determine exactly what their country needs in terms of energy security. Already--at least in the plans of Clinton & Holbrooke -- the money that the United States will disburse for energy repairs in Pakistan will be targeted carefully at 10,000 tube wells and the Tarbela powerhouse.

Precision power accepts the consequences of prioritizing. Here again Mrs. Clinton's visit to Pakistan provides examples of the ways the Obama folk are willing to wield realpolitik. Within the 289.5 million Clinton dispensation, 45 million is targeted for Pakistani education. But that 45 million is going to the Punjab, home both to the Pakistani military, who have long extorted land from farmers there, and a growing insurgency. Therefore, it is doubtful that our taxpayer dollars are going to raise the literacy rate of the poor in the Punjab. We can only hope tha the Secretary of State got something from General Kayani in return for the pocket change. This is the kind of realistic bargain (in a country where the military hold such power and influence and own so much) that President Obama seems to be prepared to make.

This is not a bargain easy to accept. For Mrs. Clinton, the consequence as Secretary of State is putting aside the specific concerns of women and children to which she has dedicated a life of public service. A quarter of Pakistan's population lives below the global poverty line; sixty percent are illiterate indentured farmers bound to a feudal society in which a few old families and the military own all the land; nonbelievers are burned alive for apostasy; the Hudood Ordinances criminalize non-marital sex for women even in cases of rape; child labor and the caste system still abide. But such injustices are peripheral in this new targeted American foreign policy. Tellingly, Hillary Clinton put the larger problems of Pakistani society to its elites this way: "And I don't know what you're going to do with that kind of challenge, unless you start planning right now." She was speaking about the coming population increase from 180 to 300 million people; she did not, however, go into specifics. These changes will be up to the Pakistani people. The United States can do only so much. In Afghanistan, furthermore, we will not be able to advance the cause of women if we are going to pin our counterinsurgency efforts to a few key geographies. Below the top strata of caste, the mistreatment of women is endemic, even more so than corruption, in South Asia. To facilitate measurable progress in the span of a human lifetime, we would have to plant a huge American force -- military at first and then civilian -- into all the provinces of Afghanistan for decades. For many reasons--political, financial, bureaucratic, logistical, personal -- we are not going to do that. Smaller efforts, like securing a country's electrical grid, will have to suffice.

Precision power wields words as objects of force. About as well as any politician ever, Barack Obama understands the many ways words can be used to achieve ends. He seems to have told his Secretary of State to go to Pakistan and speak truth to power. (Again, the team approach. If Clinton is the public enforcer, Holbrooke is the private there.) As Mrs. Clinton herself said, she did not come to Pakistan "for happy talk." Most memorably, she called out her hosts on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. She had biting words for Pakistan's elites. "The country should think about helping themselves before seeking help from others," she reproved. She chided a group of newspaper editors for their country's low percentage of taxes on GDP: "We [the U.S.] tax everything that moves and doesn't move, and that's not what we see in Pakistan." (In both instances, an annunciation of the new accountability for American aid.)

At the same time, the Obama foreign policy team understands that the power of word works both ways. The Cinton trip was most of all an attempt to get the Pakistani media to relent in its anti-Americanism. In her televised chat with seven Pakistani journalists, Mrs. Clinton urged the seven, as well as their peers, to come to the United States. "We'll have to set some of this up," she enthused. And at the same time, she suggested that Pakistan should send American journalists to the tribal areas along the Afghan border. Richard Holbrooke has been championing the new Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Azadi radio program for Pashto speakers. Media outreach and propaganda, which has languished at the State Department in recent decades, is an important component of this new precision power. Despite the problems and investigations of Alhurra, the radio network financed by us that broadcasts an American perspective to the Middle East, the Obama Administration may devote millions to a similar outreach for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Our priority now in South Asia is waking up the elites in Pakistan's military and civil society to the mortal danger in their midst. This is the core problem we have targeted. We are using team force to keep Pakistan focussed upon it. And so we have defined success narrowly, while deploying a variety of American assets (military, civilian expertise, judicial, media outreach) to achieve it. We are trying to use only as much force as minimally required; but this is a difficult mastery. We must remain in Afghanistan because our departure would further destabilize Pakistan, by opening up sanctuary for al Qaeda and Pakistan's indigenous insurgencies across the border.

This precise prioritizing and targeting demands from us intelligence, focus, persistence,dodged attention to detail, cooperation married to ruthlessness. Most of all, precision power requires an almost preternatural patience at a time when we sense the clock is running out. Both Clinton and Holbrooke must suffer the occasional urge to shake like ragdolls the Pakistani elites with whom they negotiate. How can they not see that like French civil and judicial society on the eve of revolution, their world is about to be swept away? Instead the military continues to support insurgents in the mistaken belief that as long as these Taliban are across the border they pose no domestic threat. Instead Pakistan holds out its palm for aid while complaining that we are trying to tell the country how to spend it. The educated city folk wail about the drone attacks in the territories -- a hypocrisy if there ever was one since Pakistan has never cared enough about the wild borderlands to grant the inhabitants the same civil rights that the rest of Pakistan enjoys. We have had some success in proding the Pakistani military to move a few men from the border with India, to take back the Swat Valley and to move into Waziristan. But now winter has come, and with it the end of fighting season in the mountains. The Pakistani insurgencies will have time to re-group. Meanwhile the Pakistani madrassas continue to graduate recruits.

There is nothing like the convergence of two equally unpleasant scenarios -- in this case the danger in Pakistan and American forces settling further into Afghanistan -- to sharpen a leader's mind. Presumably, this is the ministration foreign affairs has applied to President Obama during his first year in office. Whether his throwing down on Afghanistan was a campaigner's heedlessness or a vision of the future, Afghanistan is now Obama's war. Out of necessity, the President and his team are crafting a different kind of foreign policy. However events play out in South Asia, it will be interesting to see the ways in which we use this new precision power elsewhere, particularly in places where there is promise of success, over the next decade.

US Asks More From Pakistan In Terror War

2009-11-16T08:48:41Z

The Obama administration is stepping up pressure on Pakistan to expand and reorient its fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, warning that failing to do so would undercut the new strategy and troop increase for Afghanistan that President Obama is preparing to approve, American officials say.

Daniel Pearl's Family Disagrees WIth NYC Trial For Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

2009-11-14T23:38:48Z

The mother and father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl are disappointed with the federal government's decision to try Pearl's professed killer and Guantanamo detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City, according to The Hill.

Pearl's father, Judea Pearl, told the New York Post that the Justice Department's decision made him "sick to the stomach."

The foundation started by Pearl's parents, Ruth and Judea Pearl, released a statement to The Hill Saturday night, explaining their disappointment. The Hill:

We are respectful of the legal process, but believe that giving confessed terrorists a worldwide platform to publicize their ideology sends the wrong message to potential terrorists...

The Pearl family is not the first to object to the federal trial for Guantanamo detainees. The Washington Post has written that a public trial could be the "perfect arena" for smug Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's huge ego. And that a trial for the "9/11 mastermind" could provide him with "the attention he craves."

Pearl was beheaded in 2002, after he was kidnapped in Pakistan. He left behind a wife, Mariane, and young son, Adam Daniel, who was born three months after Pearl's murder. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to killing Pearl in 2007.

Jim Luce: Itzhak Perlman to Perform at Lincoln Center to Help Rotary Eradicate Polio

2009-11-14T17:05:13Z

"Polio is only a plane ride away."

So began my sobering
interview with Carol Pandak, Manager of PolioPlus
for Rotary International about polio, a crippling and potentially fatal
disease that still threatens children in Africa and Asia (video).

People in 125 countries
had polio in 1985 – today only four.
Good news, no? But the four
countries – Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan – constitute nearly one-quarter
of the world’s population.

One ray of hope is that
Rotary International continues to battle polio, working alongside UNICEF, the
World Health Organization (WHO) and the Gates Foundation. The global eradication of polio is Rotary’s
top priority.

On Dec. 2, Carol told
me, Itzhak Perlman will perform at Lincoln Center, New York City, in a benefit
concert of Rotary International’s efforts to eradicate polio – the Concert to End Polio.

Itzhak Perlman, the Israeli-American
violin virtuoso, conductor, and instructor, is widely considered as one of the
preeminent violin virtuosi of the 20th century.
He has often played with the New York Philharmonic, although not for the
last four years.

Itzhak Perlman will be featured at the Concert to End Polio in New York City December 2.

Before writing this
article, I did not know that Itzhak Perlman, the virtuoso violinist, is himself
a polio survivor. Today, he generally uses
crutches or an electric wheelchair for mobility and plays the violin while
seated.

Perlman will perform
with the New York Philharmonic at the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts,
Avery Fisher Hall, in New York City, on Wednesday, 2 December, at 7:30 pm. View the concert program.
Tickets may be purchased online through the Philharmonic.

Rotarians tackle “the last few, the
hardest to get,” says volunteer Charlene Hall, as they go door-to-door with the polio vaccine. Moradabad, India. Credit: IPTC/Alyce Henson. © Rotary International.

Carol explained that since
1985, Rotary club members worldwide have contributed more than $800 million and
countless volunteer hours to the effort.
Rotary is now working to raise an additional $200 million to fulfill its
commitment for a $355 million challenge grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation.

Polio is terrible. It is a life-time affliction from which
people cannot regain the use of their limbs – or even spine. It usually hits children under the age of
five. In some cases, paralysis can be
overcome, but with post-polio syndrome, the body weakens again later.

There are three historic
strains of polio. One has already been eradicated,
and a potent new vaccine is about to be unleashed, called a Bivalent oral polio
vaccine (bOPV), that specifically targets the other two strains. This drug, to be launched in India and
Nigeria in the coming months, is poised to accelerate progress towards a
polio-free world.

Until now, health
officials would push one vaccine, and the other strain would strengthen, and
then vice-versa, causing a ping-pong effect.

Rotarians visit the Panacea Biotec
factory, where some of the oral polio vaccine
provided to India is manufactured. Creator: IPTC/Alyce
Henson. © Rotary International.

Uttar Pradesh, a state
in northern India where polio transmission has never been interrupted, is the
size of Texas – with a population the size of the U.S. Think about that. Half a million babies born each month.

Nigeria and Pakistan, each
approximately twice the size of California, have populations of 150-170,000 million
each – more than half the population of the U.S.

I have learned that
polio cases can be considered in two categories: those that are naturally
occurring, and those that are imported from other regions. Only India, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan
have naturally occurring polio. It is
endemic in those nations.

The Americas, Europe and
the Western Pacific have already successfully eradicated polio. A certificate of eradication is issued
following three years without the virus.
Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Eastern Mediterranean are still considered
to be at risk.

Great progress has been made, and the incidence of
paralytic polio infection has plunged worldwide from 350,000 cases in 1988 to
fewer than 2,000 in 2008.

A child receives the polio vaccine at a
booth inside the Maisthan Temple in Birgunj, Nepal,

during Subnational Immunization Day rounds. Creator: EXIF/Alyce Henson. © Rotary International.

No one can predict when
exactly polio will be defeated, but beginning in January 2010, the Global Polio
Eradication Initiative will launch its three-year program, which – if the milestones along the way are met – would
achieve the interruption in the transmission of the wild polio virus.

Cultural factors also
have played a role in hindering prevention efforts. In Muslim communities some believe that the
vaccine could hamper fertility in boys.

Children smile during a visit from
Rotarians who worked through a children's
center outside Lucknow, India, during door-to-door polio immunization effort.
Creator: IPTC/Rajesh Kumar Singh. ©
Rotary International.

Bearing in mind that the
four remaining nations with polio are Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, Rotary’s strategy to engage Islamic clerics to help deliver the
vaccine message to their congregants hits the mark.

Overseeing the state’s
effort to end polio in one Indian state is the Ulema Council for Polio
Eradication, established by Rotary International. Ulemas are leading Muslim experts in Islamic
law.

Muslim clerics receive a
booklet published by India’s National PolioPlus Committee, which links polio
immunization to the duties of parents as explained in the Quran. See Rotary Foundation story.

Rotary International, made up of service clubs located all over
the world, is a secular organization open to all persons regardless of race,
color, creed, or political preference.

Rotarians gather as business and professional leaders to provide
humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and
help build goodwill and peace in the world.

As the world’s first
service club organization, Rotary began as an idea 104 years ago. Today, Rotary
flourishes worldwide with 1.2 million members in more than 200 countries and
geographical areas.

I personally have
visited and spoken at Rotary clubs in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. I am looking forward to hearing Itzhak
Perlman perform at the Concert
to End Polio. I too dream that polio
will be wiped from this plant for the sake of the world’s children.

To learn more about polio eradication, visit the Rotary End Polio or Polio Eradication websites. Also, I recommend you see the video from Rotary International President John Kenny. If you can't attend the concert, you can still donate online. View Polio Eradication background sheets by country.

Edited
by Karen F. Dimanche Davis.

William Bradley: Obama In Flux

2009-11-13T16:25:20Z

As he embarks on his first big trip to Asia, President Barack Obama's strategies are in flux in many areas.

His first stop, Japan, is acting more independently of America after the long reign of the relatively conservative Liberal Democratic Party.

His next stop, Singapore, host of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, holds a host of trade challenges, as well as a sideline meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

Afghanistan is following President Barack Obama to Asia.

The stop after that, China, is the increasingly assertive great power on the cusp of superpower status, locked in a symbiotic economic relationship with America.

His final stop, South Korea, is friendly but embroiled in an endless stand-off with North Korea, another aspiring nuclear power.

It's no surprise that Obama is being followed on his Asian trip by other crises. Because so much in his geopolitics is so fundamentally unresolved, making that Nobel Peace Prize more than a bit premature.

He still doesn't have his newest strategy for Afghanistan. Pakistan is embroiled in its latest offensive against the Taliban.

Obama on Thursday began a week-long trip to Asia, touring a complex region where a newly assertive China and a more independent Japan are challenging America's traditional dominance.

Iran has refused to sign the nuclear agreement its representatives negotiated in Vienna.

The Iranian nuclear situation becomes more convoluted every day. Now the head of the Iranian military has stated that he favors the plan Iran agreed to last month in Vienna, only to stall on ratification, then say no, and then say it wanted to re-negotiate on "details."

There is either a power struggle under way in Tehran or Iran is trying to buy time against harsher sanctions and a possible Israeli attack.

The Obama Administration moved yesterday to seize a New York skyscraper and four mosques around the country -- including one in California, in the sleepy Sacramento suburb of Carmichael -- that it says are secretly controlled by Iran, serving as conduits of cash for the regime.

Then there is the endless question of Israel and Palestine. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set off a firestorm in the Arab world when she said that Israel had done enough on its program of settlements on the West Bank. Which it is continuing. That was walked back by the administration. But there is little progress in this possibly intractable situation, with neither side willing to compromise much.

With regard to Russia, whose president Obama is again about to meet, it may be shifting away from Iran. This may be part of a complex series of political changes in Moscow which sees power apparently flowing away from the siloviki, or core group of security/intel types. Relations with Russia have also been in flux, with kinder words and some better cooperation on Afghanistan and nuclear proliferation, but no clear agreement on Russia's preferred sphere of influence in its "near abroad."

Tony Blair's farewell speech to the British Labour Party conference in 2006, the beginning of his long goodbye tour.

And then there is the matter of Tony Blair. (I know, he's not a country. Though an old friend joked that when he listens to the Beatles' "Sun King" he thinks of Blair.) His bid to be the first president of the European Union is still alive, though heavily opposed. In part because of Iraq, in part because he is in other respects out of step with Europe's mostly center-right leaders, and in part because he is a superstar who would overshadow smaller countries and the aspirational leaders of larger countries.

European leaders will gather in Brussels next Thursday to make the decision. Blair is a longtime American ally, to put it mildly, so his election would be mostly welcomed in Washington.

While almost all of America slept, Obama held summit meetings with new Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.

Hatoyama's party swept the long-ruling LDP from power earlier this year. Amidst promises of a more independent relationship with America. But Hatoyama is no radical. Actually, he is part of the long-ruling elite of his island nation.

His father was the foreign minister in an LDP government. His paternal grandfather was prime minister and head of the LDP. His maternal grandfather was the founder of Bridgestone, one of the world's largest tire companies.

It's likely, in the Japanese way, that he will pursue a moderated course of independence.

And Obama, with his Nobel Peace Prize and global celebrity, is the president to work that through, while retaining America's longtime fundamental interests in the region.

Japan still wants protection from North Korea, and a place under America's nuclear umbrella with regard to China. America still wants bases. Both want favorable trade arrangements and free-flowing capital and technology.

But it's Afghanistan that looms over Obama's shoulder as he makes his way through a series of geopolitical minefields in Asia.

Obama won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him without changes as concerns soar over the ability of the Afghan government to secure its own country

As Obama works his way toward his newest strategy on Afghanistan, a new Gallup Poll finds the nation split down the middle, with only pluralities for any position.

35% of Americans say he should follow the recommendation of the commanding U.S. general in Afghanistan and increase troop levels by about 40,000. Another 7% support a smaller troop increase, meaning a total of 42% of Americans support a troop increase of some size. However, nearly the same percentage, 44%, would like to see the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan reduced.

With 44% of Americans in the Nov. 5-8 poll favoring a troop reduction and 7% wanting to keep troop levels where they are, a slim majority appears to oppose a troop increase. Last month, using a different question wording, Gallup also found the public largely divided on sending more troops to Afghanistan.

If Obama decides to increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, he will be going against the wishes of the vast majority of rank-and-file Democrats. In fact, 60% of Democrats would like the president to begin to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan, while 26% support a troop increase of about 40,000 (18%) or less than that number (8%).

On the other hand, the majority of Republicans side with Gen. McChrystal's recommendation and support an increase of about 40,000 U.S. troops, with an additional 6% of Republicans favoring a smaller troop increase.

Independents are evenly divided between favoring a troop increase of any size (36% would like Obama to follow McChrystal's recommended increase and 7% favor a smaller increase) and supporting a reduction in U.S. troops (43%).

This is a pretty slender reed on which to base an escalation.

There is also a big gender gap on Afghanistan.

Men are much more likely than women to favor expanding the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan. A majority of men favor a troop increase (including 45% who believe Obama should follow McChrystal's recommendation) while only 32% of women agree. A majority of women would like to see the U.S. reduce its troop presence in Afghanistan.

Obama took part in the memorial service at Fort Hood and also delivered an address, one of his best, on the enduring nature and value of military service in the changing world of the early 21st century.

In the midst of all that, Obama has wildly diverging advice from his new commander and his new ambassador in Afghanistan, a retired general himself.

Obama apparently now wants additional options beyond those presented by General Stanley McChrystal, US commander in Afghanistan. And an exit plan. As well he might.

The new US ambassador to Afghanistan, retired General Karl Eikenberry, sent several cables late last week to the president opposing an escalation in Afghanistan, saying that President Hamid Karzai is incompetent and corrupt and that a surge will only make Afghanistan more dependent on America.

The only reasonable mission for America in Afghanistan is to ensure that Al Qaeda can no longer use it as a base for its training and operations. That doesn't require the sort of nation-building as counter-insurgency that McChrystal is advocating. Advocating, that is, with no guarantee of success.

That there is so much unsettled doesn't mean that Obama isn't doing his job. It means that it's a complicated world not given to bumper sticker "solutions."

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

Blast At Spy Agency In NW Pakistan Kills Seven

2009-11-12T22:04:21Z

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A suicide car bomb devastated Pakistan's main spy agency building in the northwest Friday, killing at least 7 people and striking at the heart of the institution overseeing much of the country's anti-terror campaign.

The blast in Peshawar was the latest in a string of bloody attacks on security forces, civilian and Western targets since the government launched an offensive in mid-October against militants in the border region of South Waziristan, where al-Qaida and Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding out.

National Security Adviser Jim Jones Makes Secret Trip To Pakistan

2009-11-12T17:38:24Z

Only hours before President Obama took off for Asia on Thursday, his national-security adviser landed in Pakistan on an unannounced trip to meet with senior Pakistani officials, a White House official said. Jim Jones is "going to continue the discussions that Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton had" on her own recent visit, said the official, who would talk about the trip only on condition of anonymity.

Steve Clemons: Cuba's Soft Power: Exporting Doctors Rather Than Revolution

2009-11-12T11:39:11Z

Recently, Cuba's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez and US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice went at it during a session when 187 Members of the United Nations were about to vote against the United States and two allies on the issue of the US embargo against Cuba.

Rodriguez said "President Obama has a historical opportunity to lead a change of policy toward Cuba and the lifting of the blockade," but also said "the blockade is an uncultured act of arrogance," "an act of genocide," and that the embargo was "ethically unacceptable."

I would have encouraged Cuba's foreign minister to say instead that the embargo was an anachronism of the Cold War, has not achieved the goals the US had for it, harmed both Cuban and US interests, and that the countries should realize its the 21st century and find a way to move forward.

But given the pitch of things that day at the UN, Ambassador Susan Rice threw some tough words back at Foreign Minister Rodriguez calling his remarks "straight out of the Cold War era" and "hostile."

She went on to underscore the more substantively important point that President Obama and the US were prepared to engage Cuba on a number of issues of mutual interest and concern. That at least is good news and really the only statement that mattered.

But theatrics and rhetoric aside, what is astonishingly absent from America's autopilot driven position on the Embargo is that with the end of the Cold War, Cuba is not exporting arms and revolutionaries -- Cuba is exporting doctors.

There are more than 51,000 Cuban doctors and health care professionals working around the world today, primarily in developing nations. Many of these are working collaboratively with US and European NGOs actually in third countries -- particularly in Africa in dealing with AIDS/HIV, river blindness, malaria, and a number of health maladies.

America and Cuba both maintain too much a habit of Cold War era rhetoric, but the facts on the ground are that Cuba is not a threat to the United States or its allies in any fundamental ways that justify the kind of barriers we have erected between Americans and Cubans -- at the government to government as well as at the people to people levels.

The other thing that US diplomats could do to constructively redirect a history of escalating, toxic public exchanges is to commend Bruno Rodriguez for his chapter in Cuba's "soft power" history.

In the Obama administration's roster of foreign policy practitioners today, people like Anne-Marie Slaughter, James Steinberg, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Richard Holbrooke and others have done roll up their sleeves work in developing nations -- but I think all of them would admire the year of humanitarian service Bruno Rodriguez did on the Pakistan/Kashmir border.

To make a long and very fascinating story short, Fidel Castro organized a team of 1,500 doctors into the "Henry Reeves Brigade" and offered them to the US to provide support for victims of Hurricane Katrina. Predictably, the US declined the gesture. Shortly after, a major earthquake hit the heavily Islamic fundamentalist region along the border of Pakistan and Kashmir.

Castro sent the brigade to Pakistan to help earthquake survivors and those suffering long-term shock and other problems related to the earthquake in the months after.

The current Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez -- who was then a deputy foreign minister -- was dispatched along with the Reeves Brigade to oversee the medical operations in the mountainous, difficultly accessed earthquake zone.

Americans and Europeans also sent medical teams -- one major base camp each that stayed about a month each. The Cubans sent seven major base camps and thirty field hospitals, remaining for a year.

Reportedly, the Cubans, American and European medical personnel coordinated well in the field and worked together without incident. In one case, a Cuban doctor had to dress in a full hijab as a female doctor in order to deliver the baby of a local woman -- who would have been subjected to harsh punishment if known that a male doctor did this. But the Cubans did send many female doctors and health professionals as well.

At the time this all occurred, Pakistan and Cuba did not have diplomatic relations -- and today they do. And their are Cuban doctors doing work in Pakistan today -- and Pakistani students studying at the Latin American School of Medicine.

The Henry Reeves Brigade has, since Pakistan, been deployed to help in the great Sichuan Earthquake in China and also to do disaster relief in Latin America. The Brigade now has more than 3,000 health care professionals who are experts in disaster-related medical support.

This is a case of soft power with hard results, a story that anyone can commend despite all of the other warts and problems in a relationship. Americans and Cubans worked together to help others -- and nation to nation opportunities for Cuba and Pakistan grew out of that engagement.

It would be useful to see some of this kind of material make it into our diplomatic posturing as we work to get past the past.

The Cold War should be over, and once we begin to find narratives that can fill up the pages of the present and the future, that were not written as the result of inertia and being on auto-pilot, we can move to the next, more constructive phase in US-Cuba relations.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Lisa Schirch: Building Confidence Between the US and Pakistan

2009-11-12T10:22:56Z

By Saira Yamin and Lisa Schirch
Common Ground News Service

WASHINGTON -- During her recent visit to Pakistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emphasized the need to foster a relationship of respect between the United States and Pakistan. Although Pakistan's civilian government and military establishment are closely allied with the United States in efforts to stop al-Qaeda, relations between the two countries are fraught with a lack of confidence and miscommunication, creating major obstacles to achieving shared goals.

Military, political or humanitarian confidence-building measures taken to reduce tensions between the U.S. and Pakistani governments could help transform negative public perceptions of the United States in Pakistan and elicit support for U.S. security objectives.

A survey of Pakistani public opinion conducted by the International Republican Institute in March 2009 suggests that approximately 70% of Pakistanis do not support U.S. military incursions in Pakistan. Confidence building efforts must take into account the history of mistrust between the two countries and demonstrate that the United States is taking a new approach to security. The United States must ensure that policies, actions and resources focus on population-centric security and a community-based approach to policing, rather than the enemy-centric approach that has led to further militancy in the past.

Drone strikes are a clear example of an enemy-centric approach to security. Pakistanis see these strikes as further destabilizing the region. Discontinuing them, particularly in populated areas, could serve as a signal to Pakistan that the United States is responding to Pakistani public opinion, and respects the country's territorial sovereignty.

Moving toward population-centric security would involve other measures, such as establishing a military coordination center between U.S. and Pakistani agencies - especially the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, Pakistan's equivalent of the Central Intelligence Agency as well as creating hotlines for joint intelligence and using joint military exercises geared toward protecting communities from insurgent violence without the current high levels of civilian casualties.

Members of the Inter-Services Intelligence have often been accused of sympathizing and even supporting the efforts of certain Taliban factions, a claim that Pakistani government agencies vehemently deny. Such claims should be investigated transparently -- and reforms implemented as necessary -- to restore the confidence of both the Pakistani public and the international community.

The United States could do more to acknowledge Pakistan's political interests in the region given its strong partnership with India. India's growing influence in Afghanistan is perceived as a threat to Pakistan's stability. Pakistan, for instance, recently accused India of supporting insurgents inside its territory in Balochistan, bordering Afghanistan.

A holistic international diplomatic effort that recognizes the interlocking nature of conflicts in the region, and includes both high-level principled negotiation and local level reconciliation efforts in its plan to solve them, could pay conflict resolution dividends.

Likewise, a robust diplomatic process to address outstanding political issues between Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the infiltration of militant groups, small arms and narcotics across borders, and Afghanistan's accusation of Pakistan's interference in its domestic matters, is also necessary to build trust.

The United States should ensure a continuous and efficient supply of relief assistance and development aid for the rehabilitation of communities and reconstruction of infrastructure damaged by Pakistani and U.S. military operations against the Taliban. The United States should ensure transparency and assist in planning, implementing and monitoring humanitarian and development initiatives. Pakistani civil society groups and relief agencies could help carry out such initiatives, creating a further avenue for cooperation.

Developing a comprehensive plan for reconstruction efforts should be the centerpiece of humanitarian confidence building between the United States and Pakistan. These kinds of confidence building measures will positively affect perceptions on both sides, creating an environment more conducive to cooperation and long-term stability.

Evolving a meaningful strategic partnership to successfully eliminate the common threat of terrorism requires clearer and more inclusive communication, nurturing better political and social relationships, and demonstrating that counterterrorism interventions will not be at the expense of Pakistan's internal security and displaced communities.

Saira Yamin is a doctoral student from Pakistan at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. Lisa Schirch is professor of peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University's Center for Justice and Peacebuilding. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service. Readers may send the authors e-mail at cgnews@sfcg.org or Search for Common Ground, 1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20009.

This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.

Colin Powell To Obama On Afghanistan Troop Decision: "Take Your Time"

2009-11-12T03:41:56Z

In an interview with Roland Martin on the Tom Joyner Morning Show this morning, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell revealed that he recently advised President Obama to take his time in devising his strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Helicopter Gunship Kills 10 Militants In Pakistan

2009-11-11T15:38:46Z

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A police official says gunmen have killed a Pakistani working as the director of public relations at the Iranian Consulate in the northwest city of Peshawar.

Mohammad Kamal says gunmen attacked Abul Hasan Jaffri on Thursday near his home in Peshawar, the capital of North West Frontier Province.

An Open Letter to President Obama About Afghanistan From William R. Polk

2009-11-11T02:38:34Z

I was an early supporter of yours. So I hope you will accept the following analysis and proposals as being from a friend as well as a person with considerable experience on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In recent events I see an opportunity to accomplish American objectives while avoiding a course of action that could derail plans for your presidency, just as the Vietnam War ruined the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

Saad Khan: Pakistan's Half-hearted Military Offensives Aren't Enough

2009-11-10T15:25:24Z

The Pakistani military has launched a major offensive against the Taliban in the South Waziristan region. The area is home of the Pakistani Taliban; a terrorist outfit that conducts sabotage activities in Pakistan but remains aloof from the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. North Waziristan, on the other hand, is the hub of the Afghan Taliban and they maintain cordial relations with Pakistani intelligence agencies and even get some tactile support. Although the Pakistani military is claiming victory and has faced minimal resistance but there are no independent resources to verify these reports. The area has been walled off for journalists and they have to rely on government handouts.

Additionally, there is a major crisis of people that have been displaced from the war-torn region. Secretary Clinton announced aid for the internally-displaced persons (IDP) and the Pakistani government has also announced a meager aid to these people. American military is also secretly complimenting the offensive by providing modern weapons and gadgetry to the Pakistani army. This is in addition to $7.5 billions given under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation.

Despite an all-out effort by the US government, the Pakistani military is still reluctant on taking the Taliban challenge head-on. There have been reports in independent media -- Pakistani media face a lot of restrictions to reveal secrets and have just self-imposed a tougher censorship policy -- that the Pakistani military tipped off the Taliban before the offensive. According to a report in BBC Urdu, Pakistani intelligence agencies might have struck a deal with the Taliban in this regard.

It appears that the Pakistani military entered a deal with the Taliban where they agreed to avoid any "lose-lose" position. Pakistani military recaptured the territories while the Taliban retained their cadre, ammunition and organizational structure.

In any case, South Waziristan offensive was announced in May but it actually started after a delay of five months. It was enough time for the Taliban to finalize their combat strategies i.e. tacitcal retreat. The Pakistani military has benefited from this deal but not the common Pakistanis. Terrorist attacks have become a daily affair and hardly a day passes when dozens of people do not lose their lives.

North Waziristan Taliban, under the leadership of Haqqanis, are still strong in their bases and gathering support from some elements of the Pakistani military. As the Pakistani Taliban have also joined them in recent weeks, they might launch major attacks in Afghanistan. Although the real perpetrators of this carnage remain in the "open closet", the lack of a concerted effort would hamper any half-hearted attempts of the Pakistani military.

Police: Bomb kills 20 in northwest Pakistan market

2009-11-10T07:46:20Z

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A suicide car bomber attacked a crowded market in northwestern Pakistan on Tuesday, killing 24 people and illustrating militants' growing willingness to target civilians in their war against the government.

Taliban insurgents apparently hope the attacks will weaken the army's resolve to wage an offensive against the the group's stronghold along the Afghan border. But the indiscriminate killing could backfire by further turning the public against Islamist extremists, as happened in Iraq.

Carol Smaldino: Veteran's Day Special: Coming Down to Earth with "Occupation: Dreamland"

2009-11-09T15:32:13Z

For all of the obvious reasons, the massacre at Fort Hood, where American soldiers killed American soldiers, captured our immediate horror and attention and snapped us out of our day-to-day regard for our troops which can be summed up by the word "distance." It is a stark reminder of the need to guard against becoming numb against the human face of war and of the intimate stories that our active duty soldiers and veterans carry into battle here and abroad. Fortunately, the film "Occupation: Dreamland" fills that void. In the wake of this week's tragedy, and for Veteran's day, this documentary brings us all down to Earth.

When "Occupation: Dreamland" opened in 2005, I went to see it on the Friday night of its modest premiere in Manhattan. The two filmmakers were a bit like outlaws. They entered Iraq with improvised journalist badges and moved in on the 82nd Airborne to request the right to live with the unit, to go on combat missions with them and to film them. They were granted permission based on their promise to adhere to the soldiers' insistence on the lack of narration, and the lack of music. This gave the soldiers a sense of integrity, and as a result the film leaves the audience without the props of the more predictable viewing experiences.

Co-directors Garrett Scott and Ian Olds made a film that puts the viewer in the uncomfortable position of having no easily manufactured feelings or opinions. We witness the actual soldiers, speaking out loud their wonderings about the war, giving voice to their mixed feelings and confusions about the Iraqi people. We see the boy who looks so simple saying things so deep and contradicting our own prejudices, right and left. Each soldier seems familiar by the end of the movie, and their political views don't offend us since we have come to know them as real people.

For those of us aching to disown the racism we share by default, we are taken by surprise and are discomfited by the officer in the film who is the most easy to hate. He is Black, and his job is to predictably bully soldiers on site with urgency and threats to re-enlist for another term. He warns them, in menacing tones, that they will be smoking crack and shooting up in hallways and alleyways, and (it would sound like a Bob Dylan refrain if it weren't said so literally), "Yo' mama's not gonna want you, nobody is gonna want you."

It was, for me, easy to become especially sympathetic to Joseph, the young shoe salesman without the funds to pursue an education in design. We watch Joseph describe what seemed like the simple impulse to wander in and take a look around at the recruiting office next door. "Wandering" is best reserved for nature walks where no signing of papers is possible. Alas, the papers were signed in seconds and there went four years of his life.

As I watched, I anxiously awaited news of whether Joseph would make it out of war, to be able to design. It was easy to identify with him, and I felt such relief to find that he was in the movie audience with us that night, and he later participated in the discussion. He was also part of the directors' life story, since they were helping him get back a life.

"Occupation: Dreamland" isn't obsolete even though Afghanistan and Pakistan may be replacing Iraq as the heartland of our fickle concerns. Iraq -- it's memories and losses -- is part of us. It is as real as the boys on the screen who hint of others who might also be confused or bored, loving to listen to music, and then out of nowhere are jolted into the fearless adrenalin rush of battle and killing and dying. The directors never leave these soldiers, not even in the late night rush into combat. Through the camera, we feel the boredom and the tedium and the rush. We experience it in real time, without commercial interruption, so the effect is that it feels we are waiting with the soldiers, almost impatient for the "action" to begin. We are so used to the excitement and pace of "war" in our usual films that it is easy to forget these are real people who could stand more boredom and less death. This movie stays authentic to its own mission by giving us slices of the truth, and so it gives us no predictable climactic moments and no dependable moods or conclusions.

In general, we have been increasingly geared to not know the people who make up what is called the "news," or to meditate on a picture so poignant that it would arrest our attention had we seen it done by Picasso and hung in a museum. Even my own distaste for the war, which I experience without ambivalence, collided with the more raw and simple concern, as if I recovered my own capacity to care; one that I didn't known I had put away.

Veterans Day, is perhaps not meant to be an easy day for flags or protests or sales or a day off. We are to honor veterans; thank them for having defended our freedom while we plan for peace. But there is no true freedom unless we can consider, not just a party line about a war, but all the sides, and all the people engaged in that war. Otherwise, we think without feeling, or we detach without either thought or feeling. Our soldiers are not necessarily aligned with one party or party line...they are much more.

There is a disconnect between the salute and the battlefield of the present; the raw combat and the amputations of limbs and of hope. More and more we are getting facts without faces, without the words of soldiers living the ordeal.

"Occupation: Dreamland" takes a few soldiers out of the massive haze of blurred images. It forces their quirks and their moods and opinions on us until the barriers of class and education seem trite and even negligible. We cannot afford to smirk or condescend during this film, and so it might be a dose of what we need at this moment in our history.

On this Veteran's Day...especially in the wake of Fort Hood...and eight years and more than 5,130 battlefield deaths later...we can only truly honor our veterans by getting to know them. "Occupation: Dreamland" is that gift to them and to ourselves.

Suicide Bomber Kills 3 In Pakistan

2009-11-09T09:49:19Z

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A suicide bomber in a rickshaw detonated his explosives near a group of policemen in northwest Pakistan's main city of Peshawar on Monday, killing three people, police said.

The attack was the latest in a string of strikes that has killed more than 300 people over the past six weeks. The bloodshed appears aimed at distracting the government from its offensive against the Taliban in the South Waziristan tribal region.

Seymour Hersh: Can An Unstable Pakistan Keep Safe Its Nuclear Arsenal?

2009-11-08T08:46:26Z

In the tumultuous days leading up to the Pakistan Army's ground offensive in the tribal area of South Waziristan, which began on October 17th, the Pakistani Taliban attacked what should have been some of the country's best-guarded targets. In the most brazen strike, ten gunmen penetrated the Army's main headquarters, in Rawalpindi, instigating a twenty-two-hour standoff that left twenty-three dead and the military thoroughly embarrassed. The terrorists had been dressed in Army uniforms. There were also attacks on police installations in Peshawar and Lahore, and, once the offensive began, an Army general was shot dead by gunmen on motorcycles on the streets of Islamabad, the capital. The assassins clearly had advance knowledge of the general's route, indicating that they had contacts and allies inside the security forces.