Obama's Resurgance in Afghanistan

In an elegant show of reasoning and logic, President Barack Obama, with his security team in tow, spoke in front of 3400 West Point cadets and explained why he was committing 30,000 more American troops to the War in Afghanistan beginning in January 2010. Despite his reassurance that the war will be limited to:
• Denying al Qaeda a safe haven
• Reversing the Taliban's momentum to overthrow Afghanistan's government
• Strengthening Afghanistan's security forces and government,
what is being repeated is a surge policy. With the idea being to have enough boots on the ground to finish what has been, to this point, a largely unwinnable war, his hope lies in repeating the relative success that his predecessor's policy had in Iraq.

To his credit his plan has a timeline, but like all war plans, there is an escape clause depending on what is happening in the country when the withdrawal of troops is scheduled to start in July 2011. The plan also includes commitments from 43 countries to step up and support the effort, which is commendable if it works. Lastly, Obama pointed out that the extra $30 additional billion price tag per year will have to be paid for and that he would work with Congress to do that. With the current plans to overhaul health care and to invest in job creation, one has to wonder what will be cut to accommodate two wars that have already cost taxpayers over a trillion dollars.

As the President travels to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize in nine days, one has to wonder if he should decline the honor. To accept such a prize under the shroud of escalating this war is tragic, regardless of his reasoning for doing so.

Look What Obama Gets for Christmas

A CNN poll reports that 75% of those polled won't miss George W. Bush when he leaves office. However there is one man in the U.S. who will, Barack Obama. You see the problems that President Bush leaves behind will be a adeptly handed off to Obama with the skill of Minnesota Viking's QB Tarvaris Jackson last weekend (for the non-footballers, that's not good).

Stepping into the breach, President-Elect Obama will likely see Israel sending troops into the Gaza to take on radical Palestinian's who are launching Katuscha rockets from the territory. He will find Pakistan sending their troops to the border of India. All this and two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a crumbling economy here at home, and so on.

Fortunately, Obama brings hope and change and a pretty good cabinet to takeover for the miserable failures that will be left behind when George W. and Laura take their last Texas two-step out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. If you believe in the power of prayer, heads down, prayers up.

Joe Biden on Pakistan

I was called to task for not mentioning Senator Joe Biden's stance on Pakistan in the last posting I made. In my defense, I was posting an article from the Washington Post. Oh well--'tis the caucus season and everyone has their favorite. But the point is well taken: Joe Biden should be mentioned in any conversation about foreign relations, he is, after all, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Listen to him in Corydon, Iowa:



Political Insider points out the complaint that the commenter made to my blog:

"Two months ago, Joe Biden started talking about the risks of Pakistan collapsing -- and he kept talking about the issue even after Pakistan left the front page news. Now Pakistan blows up and political reporters talk about how the news might benefit ... John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton.

Biden will be holding a news conference on Pakistan later today [12/27/07], it could be his last opportunity to get back into the race. The conventional wisdom is that political reporting is in an endless feedback loop ... Biden gets no news coverage because he talks about arcane issues like Pakistan ... he polls poorly because he gets no news coverage ... he isn't mentioned in stories about Pakistan when it becomes news because he polls poorly.

Is this any way to pick a President?"

No, and if the election were only about foreign relations, Senator Biden and Bill Richardson would no doubt poll better. But as the late Tip O'Neill famously said, "all politics is local" and unless voters can understand why what happens in Pakistan or elsewhere matters to them, they categorically tune it out.

Ask the Kurds, the Darfur refugees, the AIDS victims in Africa, and so on.

To my point, Joe Biden is a decent and smart man and will likely be called upon by the next administration in some capacity (Secretary of Defense or State)--but he has not made his case to be president resonate with voters.

So to my dear commenter, feel free to call me irresponsible, but remember it is your candidate who has failed to make his case.

Al Qaeda or the Taleban: What's the Real Story?

With Benazir Bhutto out of the picture, there is speculation as to who could be responsible.

According to Reuters:

Pakistan has "intelligence intercepts" indicating that al Qaeda was behind the killing of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, the Interior Ministry said on Friday.

Former prime minister Bhutto was killed in a gun and bomb attack as she left an election rally in the city of Rawalpindi on Thursday, plunging nuclear-armed Pakistan into one of the most serious crises in its 60-year history.

"We have intelligence intercepts indicating that al Qaeda leader Baitullah Mehsud is behind her assassination," ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema told a news conference.

On the other hand, according to CNN:

U.S. officials suspect a Taliban leader from Afghanistan may be behind the plot to assassinate former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, a senior official said Friday.

The official identified Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud as a leading suspect, saying there's "good information that leads us to believe he is the guy responsible."

What is clear is that both governments are using this unfortunate event to remind us that the War on Terrorism is necessary. What they don't tell us is what is more troubling. What was the role of the Musharraf government in protecting Bhutto? What was the role of the US? Both had a vested interest in her protection given the recent state of emergency in Pakistan called by Musharraf.

Pakistanis to Musharraf: I Want My TV

At the request of Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, the government of Dubai has pulled the plug on two Pakistani owned TV stations that operate from there. GEO-TV and ARY Digital both offer a variety of programming, including news, entertainment, sports and music.

Police raided GEO TV in March after it aired live coverage of clashes between police and lawyers supporting Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the independent-minded chief justice who was removed from his post following Musharraf's state of emergency. Equipment was broken and journalists were beaten.

Currently journalists are protesting in the streets of Islamabad and elsewhere to protest Musharraf's strongarm tactics which limit how news may be reported there. The Daily Times reports:

The journalists said the government had asked the owners of the media organisations to sign an undertaking to abide by the code of conduct and two ordinances of the Pakistan Electronic Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), which have not been finalised so far.

The newsmen said the government could not deceive the people by imposing bans on specific popular talk shows and that the government would have to give full freedom to the media organisations to talk about the problems being faced by the people. They said freedom of press meant the freedom of people as the media highlighted the suppression of people who need the attention of the government.

Musharraf had pulled the plug on Pakistani national television stations, but today allowed two of them back on the air (minus their "most popular programmes", according to the Hindu). following talks between the owners of the channels and the government. The channels back on Thursday were Aaj TV and Dawn News. Two international channels, CNN and BBC, were also back.

And We Are Worried About Iran?

I recall that John Edwards had spoken about the danger of insurgency in Pakistan to the US News and World Report in August. In the most recent debate Joe Biden and Chris Dodd had this pegged when they expressed that the situation in Pakistan is potentially more dangerous than the current threat from Iran.

From the BBC

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule and suspended the country's constitution.

He defended his actions in a national address, saying he was curbing a rise in extremism in Pakistan.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry has been replaced and the Supreme Court surrounded by troops, who also entered state-run TV and radio stations.

The moves come as the Supreme Court was due to rule on the legality of Gen Musharraf's October election victory.

The court was to decide whether Gen Musharraf was eligible to run for re-election last month while remaining army chief.

The BBC's Barbara Plett reports from Islamabad that fears had been growing in the government that the Supreme Court ruling could go against Gen Musharraf. More

US Government: Swinging Both Ways

The US and Great Britain, democracy-promoters in principle, do not practice it and support some fairly vile characters (some of whom they later track down spider holes and, in theory, bring to justice). In Pakistan, Gen. Musharraf is surviving an economy that is erratic to say the least and being pushed to share power with deposed PM Benazir Bhutto, a deal which the US and Britain brokered.

Musharraf, whose legality to be President is being challenged in Pakistan's high court, and whose victory cannot be officially validated until they decide, has been cagey about whether he would step down. Asked whether he would stand down if the court ruled him ineligible, Gen Musharraf said: “Let the decision come and then we will decide.”

Meanwhile in the Sudan, the US continues to dance supporting the government's intelligence efforts (and renditioning of presumed enemies) while challenging their peace efforts between north and south and despite the massacre in Darfur. The CIA operation center in Sudan is said to be the biggest spy operation center in the region.

And this is the way of the struggles between the need for intelligence and a desire to put on a face that suggests friendly relations, even with those who we fundamentally disagree. We are in a rock and a hard place, the bigger question is how did we get here.

Why Are We Fighting in Pakistan?

From the BBC

US troops serving under the command of the Nato-led international peacekeeping force crossed the border into Pakistan on Monday to discuss the unrest with their Pakistani counterparts. Afghan troops went with them.


Pakistan clash 'kills US soldier'

A US soldier has been shot dead after meeting Pakistani troops at a town near the Afghan border, Pakistan's military spokesman has said.

A Pakistani soldier also died in the shooting, Maj Gen Waheed Arshad said. He blamed the attack on militants.

A Nato statement said one of its personnel had been killed but did not confirm the soldier's nationality.

Maj Gen Arshad denied Afghan government claims a Pakistani officer opened fire on the visiting US and Afghan soldiers.

Nato spokeswoman Lieutenant Colonel Maria Carl said she had little information about "who did it or anything else, other than that they received gunfire after leaving this border meeting".

Besides the Nato fatality, the alliance said two of its soldiers and two civilian employees were injured in the incident.