Afghanistan: What's wrong with this picture?

Take a look at all of those US flags - up against Pakistan's border.

Yes, that's right. While Robert Gates and Condi Rice (who just arrived in Afghanistan for a surprise visit) have both been threatening the demise of NATO if Afghanistan becomes a "failed state" by not having other countries sending in more combat troops because they won't be bullied into it, US troops are busy fighting along the Pakistani border because their useless commander-in-chief has been busy propping up Pervez Musharraf to the tune of $10 billion the past few years. And what, exactly, has he gotten in return?

Musharraf, who has been protecting the notorious AQ Khan from international scrutiny, is now reportedly relaxing Khan's house arrest rules. The Bush administration has forgiven Musharraf every step of the way for his refusal to take control of Waziristan and if you're wondering why the US military won't commit more troops to Kandahar, where our Canadian troops are dying, it's probably because they'll be too busy training Pakistan's army.

Michael Vickers, assistant defense secretary for special operations and low-intensity conflict, said training sites are being chosen for a five-year program to train and equip the Frontier Corps, a paramilitary unit, to confront al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan's northwestern tribal region.

"That is just getting under way," he told reporters at a briefing. "There may be other training assistance as well, subject to continuing discussions with the Pakistanis."

The training is part of a new $750 million U.S. development effort to make Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) less hospitable for al Qaeda and the Taliban. Washington has given Pakistan $10 billion, mainly in military aid, since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

As usual, this is too little way too late considering the situation in Afghanistan. But, both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been planned for on the fly at the behest of Donald Rumsfeld:

As the United States prepared to respond to the attacks of September 11, Rumsfeld pushed a reluctant military to think unconventionally about going to war in Afghanistan. Dissatisfied with the plan for a large-scale invasion that he received from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Rumsfeld turned to the Pentagon's Special Operations forces.

"He is willing to start military operations in Afghanistan before most of the military thinks that we're ready to do so. And [a] small number of special forces soldiers combined with CIA support for indigenous Afghan resistance forces brings about spectacular results," Krepinevich says.

When the president's attention turned towards Iraq, Rumsfeld pushed his war planners to think outside the box. Emboldened by his success in Afghanistan, the secretary once again pushed aside Pentagon critics and demanded an unconventional war plan.

"Rumsfeld thinks you can re-invent [the] war plan," The Washington Post's Bob Woodward tells FRONTLINE, "And anything that smacks of the old way or something that looks conventional to him, he asks questions about. Doesn't necessarily oppose it, but will ask questions about it, and is looking to make this quicker, with less force and with less casualties."

So, if the Afghanistan war is lost, it certainly isn't NATO's fault. And, just how much of a difference will 1,000 more soldiers make?

This is all on the Bush administration and no amount of guilt-tripping by Gates and Rice at this point is going to change that.

“I do think the alliance is facing a test here,” Ms. Rice said in a visit to London. “Populations have to understand that this is not just a peacekeeping fight.”

Can she possibly be any more condescending?

In Canada, as expected, the Conservative government will table a motion on Thursday for parliament to consider Canada's future role in Afghanistan beyond February, 2009. Stephane Dion said this week the debate will be "civil". Just how do you debate civilly with a bullying government armed with Bush talking-points and insults that any opposing opinion equals siding with the Taliban? While Dion hopes to play chess with Harper - hoping he'll accept a non-combat role extension - "The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois have said flatly that they will vote against any extension of the mission."

As I wrote here last week, there's much more to this debate than whether or not the troops will continue fighting. There's an economic component that's important to both the Conservatives and Liberals in terms of US/Canada relations and I believe that's what's fueling the Harper/Dion meetings this week ie. how to stay on the so-called good side of the US without getting dinged financially.

But that's not what the general public will hear about in this upcoming "debate". It will be all about NATO's credibility and the idea that Canada is responsible for saving it.

Somehow, the Afghanistan people have been forgotten in all of this.

Related:

The war that can bring neither peace nor freedom; The crisis of the Afghan occupation is a reminder of its fraudulent claims, growing cost in blood, and certainty of failure

Pakistani News Channel Goes Off Air

Intrigue takes Afghanistan to the brink
 

Jonas v Fisk: Diverging Views on Bhutto's Death

Did you know that Musharraf's declaration of martial law saved Bhutto's life and that the rounding up of lawyers and human rights activists was the right thing to do? That's what the National Post's George Jonas thinks.

The White House has clout, so Bhutto returned in a triumphal procession to Karachi in November. As anyone could have predicted, Islamist extremists pounced almost immediately, raining fire on Bhutto’s parade, killing and maiming hundreds. They were getting ready to kill and maim thousands more, when Musharraf imposed a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, deployed troops and locked up hordes of lawyers and journalists, claiming it was necessary to prevent a takeover by the militants of Islam.

Locking up journalists and lawyers comes naturally to strongman, but Musharraf’s concern about militants wasn’t unwarranted. At present, a democratic Pakistan is likely to be a brief prelude to the long, dark night of a Taliban-style tyranny. Bhutto, as it turned out, lived only as long as Musharraf’s emergency measures lasted. When he lifted them under renewed American pressure, she died.

The Independent's Robert Fisk commented today on the "childish coverage" of Bhutto's death and Jonas' simplistic screed is a prime example of that reality.

Not only does Jonas let Mush off the hook, he then goes on to blame liberals for this push towards democracy in other countries. I guess he's never read the neocon PNAC credo.

Pressuring Pakistan to act out America’s fascination with democracy is minimally naïve. So is forcing Musharraf, who perches precariously at the edge of a precipice, to audition for a speaking part in a psychodrama called “elections” that Western liberals believe is therapeutically efficacious against every conceivable malady in the body politic.

I didn't know George W Bush, the mouthpiece for the west's democracy crusade was a "Western liberal". Did you?

Jonas seems convinced that countries over there just aren't suited to a democratic style of government - that they're 'allergic' to it, as his metaphor goes. He's right only up to a point: democracy isn't a system that should be forced on any country, which you'd think the American empire would have learned by know. It does not then logically follow that countries that are currently undemocratic can't ever find a way to make the system work for them. "Childish coverage", indeed.

Stick to Fisk if you want a realistic view of what's going on in the world and in Pakistan at this moment. When it comes to who's really responsible for Bhutto's death, no matter which theory is used to explain it, Fisk nails it:

So let's run through this logic in the way that Inspector Ian Blair might have done in his policeman's notebook before he became the top cop in London.

Question: Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir's supporters this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who declared martial law this month? Answer General Musharraf.

Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?

Er. Yes. Well quite.

You see the problem? Yesterday, our television warriors informed us the PPP members shouting that Musharraf was a "murderer" were complaining he had not provided sufficient security for Benazir. Wrong. They were shouting this because they believe he killed her.

According to Jonas, if only Musharraf had kept Bhutto under house arrest in a state of martial law, she'd still be alive today. Only a fool would make Musharraf out to be a hero in this situation.
 

Bhutto Assassinated

Benazir Bhutto, courted by the Bush administration to bring democracy back to Pakistan, was murdered this morning by a gunman who shot her twice and then blew himself up, killing 20 more people.

The Independent reports: "Suspicion for the blast fell on resurgent Islamic militants linked to al Qaida and the Taliban who hated Bhutto for her close ties to the US and her support for the war on terror."

No one has claimed responsibility at this point and the fate of the January elections is now up in the air.

Bhutto's return to Pakistan was not without controversy since she had left the country having been convicted of corruption charges (which were dropped by Musharraf this past October) only to return with the encouragement of Bushco to help deal with Musharraf's failures.

Related:

In September, Bhutto penned a piece that appeared on the Huffington Post site: "Why I'm Returning to Pakistan", selling herself as Pakistan's great hope for the future and ending with "I didn't choose this life. It chose me."

The Guardian offers a chronology of her political life.

Coverage from The Pak Tribune, The BBC and Pakistani Bloggers.

The WaPo has Bush's reaction (text and video).

The initial financial impact: U.S. stocks fall sharply, unsettled by Bhutto death; Dow falls more than 100 points amid thin trading, heightened geopolitical risk while Loonie up after oil rises following Bhutto killing in Pakistan.
 

Pakistan, the US, Afghanistan and Canada

The US/Pakistan relationship is truly fraught with irony as this statement by Bush Monday morning reveals:

WASHINGTON, Nov 5 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush is urging Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to quickly return to civilian rule and release people detained under an emergency decree, the White House said on Monday.
[...]
"We cannot support emergency rule or the extreme measures taken during the emergency," Perino said. "Such actions are not in Pakistan's best interest and damage the progress Pakistan has made on its path to democracy."

"The president and his advisers ... right now are urging him to quickly return to civilian rule, to get back on the path of democracy, to restore the freedoms of the press as well as release detainees," she said. "The president continues to urge calm on all of the parties."

This, coming from an American administration that declared a "global war on terror" and was quick to grant itself extra-judicial powers to round up its own cadre of detainees following 9/11. Musharraf, after all, is just claiming the same situation in his country - that he imposed emergency rule to clamp down on militants - which is, of course, not the real reason. Realizing that his presidency was threatened by a supreme court that was due to rule that his win in the October election was moot, he did what he thought he could to hang onto his power just as Bush has used to GWOT excuse to shred the US constitution for years on end. There is no formal "emergency rule" in the US, but the power grab by Bush has virtually mirrored to a lesser extent what Musharraf has now put in place in Pakistan.

And what would happen if Bush actually did declare emergency rule in the United States? If an ongoing illegal war with thousands of US casualties and millions of dead and displaced Iraqis and the knowledge that his regime has been spying on Americans while condoning torture against suspected terrorists hasn't been enough to stop Bush in his tracks by the harshest legal measures possible; with an opposition party constantly whining about how they can't seize power back from the oval office and the Republicans while refusing to impeach their president; and with a population that's just on hold - waiting for Bush's term to simply end while hoping that will bring some relief or change - would anyone really rise up if Bush grabbed even more power? And really, just how much more can he grab since he gets away with virtually everything he wants to anyway?

But, back to Pakistan. This morning, Canada's defence minister Peter Mackay spoke about what seems to be his main concern for Canadian troops in Afghanistan - a possible flood of refugees from Pakistan who might then join the Taliban and al Qaeda. Tens of thousands of displaced Afghans have been returning for years. This is not a new development. What he failed to mention was the delicate military support relationship between the US/NATO and Pakistan ie. how the US has funneled billions of dollars to Pakistan's military in an attempt to keep militants at bay in the north while Pakistan has provided logistical help for US and NATO troops in Afghanistan (such as it is, since there is major support for the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan). That's the real threat to NATO's Afghanistan mission.

Meanwhile, Washington has very little choice as far as supporting Musharraf goes and, although Bush will bluster on with words of disappointment the international community expects to hear, his precious grip on the GWOT is tenuous:

A senior security official speaking to Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity, said, "Major surgeries are essential in cases like Lal Masjid [a militant mosque in Islamabad], but such extraordinary events need extraordinary powers. If the courts intervene in such matters, the security forces will stop working and nobody will be able to stop the march of the Taliban into the bigger cities of Pakistan."

The official continued, "This is a major crossroads in the 'war on terror' at which Washington will have to approve an all-powerful government, even at the cost of democracy. Otherwise it can say goodbye to Pakistan as a 'war on terror' ally as it [Pakistan] would simply not be able to get results."

Once again, Canadian troops will have to deal with the consequences of the disastrous decision Bush made to pull US troops out of Afghanistan to start his illegal war in Iraq and our Canadian Conservative minority government has just been handed another reason to continue Canada's mission past its currently expected exit date in 2009 - a move it's been trying to justify by any means possible despite opposition by a growing majority of Canadians.

Musharraf's decision will ripple through our country. What are we going to do about it? How much more are we going to sacrifice for Bush's mistakes?

Related:

Pakistani Bloggers aggregator
Video: Pakistani police use batons and tear gas against stone-throwing lawyers protesting over Pervez Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule
U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
Pakistan shakes off US shackles
A look at rights suspended in Pakistan
Musharraf defends emergency rule

Update: Bush holds a press conference and doesn't commit to doing anything:

Bush would not discuss what action he might take — for example, how much U.S. aid to Pakistan would be cut — if Musharraf ignores his request.

"It's a hypothetical," he said. "I certainly hope he does take my advice."

But the president made a point of praising Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terror, and seemed resigned that, as a result, there is little concrete action he can take to influence Musharraf's behavior.

"All we can do is continue to work with the president ... to make abundantly clear the position of the United States," he said.

Quote du Jour: Condi on Pakistan

Pakistan police beat protesting lawyers

"The United States has never put all of its chips on Musharraf," Rice said, urging Pakistan to rejoin the road to democracy and warning that U.S. aid to its ally was under review.

Right.

Washington has given Islamabad around $10 billion over the last five years.

Flashback, 2002: Bush, Musharraf are Disturbingly Similar

Musharraf, 2006: "And I will never violate the constitution of Pakistan."

Sound familiar?
 

Musharraf Declares Emergency Rule

In an effort to avoid giving up his military chief status, Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule. Bhutto, whom Britain and the US held up as the next great hope for Pakistan (despite the fact that she left the country embroiled in a corruption scandal a few years back and is waiting to see if those charges will be dropped) was out of the country visiting relatives in Dubai and has apparently flown back. ABC reports that she is "sitting in an airplane at Karachi's airport, waiting to see if she would be arrested or deported".

Musharraf has taken control of the media and phone lines have been cut in Islamabad.

As for the Supreme Court, which was to decide next week if Musharraf had actually been eligible to run in last month's elections while he remained chief of the army:

"Seven Supreme Court judges immediately came out against the emergency, which suspended the current constitution. Police blocked entry to the Supreme Court building and later took the chief justice and other judges away in a convoy, witnesses said.

And does this remind you of anyone?

A copy of the emergency order obtained by The Associated Press justified the declaration on the grounds that "some members of the judiciary are working at cross purposes with the executive" and "weakening the government's resolve" to fight terrorism.

Sounds like echoes of Bush and Cheney to me. Ironically though, their so-called ally with nukes is now a loose cannon. That's what happens when you take the "unitary executive" theory to its limits - it turns into dictatorship. Fine example they've set, n'est-ce pas? (Although a part of me thinks they're both sitting back drooling secretly over Musharraf grabbing so much power while they still have to put up with a pesky, "obstructionist" congress and Supreme court decisions that they don't like in the US.)

More as this develops...

Related:

Pakistan Tribune coverage.
PakTribune News Wire Service
Pakistan Times
Pakistan Daily Times
Pakistani bloggers

This Pakistani blogger is providing continual updates including news of rumours that Musharraf is under house arrest.

UNCONFIRMED RUMOR: Some sources are now reporting the that Pres. Musharraf is under house arrest and that Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS) General Ashfaq Kayani has taken control of the Army and thereby the country. This would explain why all announcements re: the state of emergency have simply stated that they were by order of the “Chief of Army Staff,” with Pres. Musharraf’s name ommitted. I repeat, this just a rumor. I have other sources who claim to have just spoken with Musharraf refuting the rumor. (Updated 11:15am US EST/8:15pm PST)

The Times of India nails Washington's weak response.

WASHINGTON: Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf's has defied the advice of his American benefactors in imposing martial law and Emergency, but Washington appears set to finesse the situation yet again because of what it sees as the overall US interest in the so-called war on terror.

The first sign that Washington is ready to wink at Musharraf's crackdown came when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stopped short of condemning the development and instead described it as "highly regrettable."

She told CNN that the United States does not support extra-constitutional measures [ha ha, ya right -catnip] and urged restraint on all sides and a "swift return to democracy."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Bush administration was "deeply disturbed" by the developments while offering words of support to the Pakistani people.

"The United States stands with the people of Pakistan in supporting a democratic process and in countering violent extremism," McCormack, who is accompanying Rice on her visit to Turkey, told AP . "We urge all parties to work together to complete the transition to democracy and civilian rule without violence or delay."

But the statements fell well short of the kind of condemnations Washington routinely issues against countries, excepting vassal states, that suppress democratic rights, indicating that the administration was already finessing Musharraf's crackdown.

There was no word from Rice or her underlings about the arrest of the chief justice and his associates or about the crackdown on the media.

read on...

 

9/11 - 6 Years Later

This man - this incompetent, criminal opportunist - is set to speak to Americans again on Thursday. And who would have guessed that, 6 full years after the attacks of 9/11, the topic of his speech would be war with Iraq? Certainly not the neocons who seized on the horrors of 9/11 as an excuse to illegally wage war on that country. They thought it would be a cakewalk. Many of them are now tremendously frustrated that their dreams of pillaging Iraq's oil have not yet been fully realized. "Blood and treasure" was a phrase used throughout the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker the past two days. Why was I reminded of pirates?

And what of the Afghanistan war - the so-called just war waged after the 9/11 attacks? It's been quietly forgotten. When Petraeus was asked how his plans for Iraq might impact the GWOT, he basically said that figuring that out was not his department - that it was his job to focus solely on the Iraq war. He couldn't (or wouldn't) answer how the concentration of American troops might affect the US military's inability to deal with conflicts in the rest of the world and at home. His responses reminded me of the warnings given before and after 9/11 about US intelligence agencies not working together to deal with possible threats. And we all know what the result of that failure was.

Ryan Crocker, acting like a CEO addressing concerned corporate shareholders about their investments in Iraq (and that's really what his testimony was about, wasn't it?) could only parrot Petraeus by admitting he was "frustrated". He spoke with a chilling, distant, business-like indifference about the plight of the actual people - the Iraqis - whose fate is in his hands. No "timelines, dates or guarantees". Nothing.

And neither man could admit that the counter-insurgency strategy that's been implemented has also been practiced (most likely by accident since the official Petraeus manual hadn't been written yet) in Afghanistan - that of working with the locals while not making the much-needed connections to the federal government. The result? War lords back in power. The Taliban continuing its oppression. Karzai crying crocodile tears over all of the civilians NATO and the US military keep killing in air strikes - air power being used because there are not, and never were, enough troops on the ground. Opium once again the number one cash crop driving Afghanistan's economy. But, on this anniversary of 9/11, Iraq was the focus.

Petraeus, claiming he didn't have any sort of political agenda, was basically a two-trick pony: the problems in Iraq are being caused by al Qaeda in Iraq and Iran - convenient targets considering the Bush administration's fearmongering of late. And, as was pointed out to Petraeus, the fact that the Sunnis are rebelling against AQI in al Anbar is not so much about the fact that they've suddenly been won over (in the "hearts and minds" game). The opposition to AQI came about because their people were being raped and slaughtered. The US military seems to have no problem with supporting the Sunnis, especially since they can execute whomever they like without following the rules of war. And while Petraeus heralds this so-called triumph, the political reality of supporting the Sunnis is actually counter-productive to the concept of "national reconciliation" that both Petraeus and Crocker admit has not moved along as expected. Well, what do they expect when neither of them said one thing about the absolutely rampant corruption in al Maliki's government along with his dictatorial actions to shut down any investigations about the wrongdoing?

Shades of Afghanistan once again.

And while Petraeus hopes that touting so-called progress at the micro level is reason enough to convince congress, Americans and the world that the occupation should continue, the Bush administration is placing serious roadblocks to dealing with players in the region, like Iran and Syria, at the macro level - using threats, intimidation and sanctions as a macho form of cowboy diplomacy. How has that worked out so far?

Meanwhile, Karzai is once again trying to negotiate with the Taliban while they refuse to do so with foreign troops in the country and Musharraf pulled out of attending an Afghanistan peace conference in August. As a result of Musharraf's continual inability or reluctance to deal with insurgents in Waziristan, the US government is now placing its hopes in the return of the corrupt Benazir Bhutto. (The NYT has more on Pakistan's current political situation.)

On all of these fronts, there is no coherent and comprehensive policy except the continued push by the White House to assert its executive powers (made up as they go along while shredding the constitution in the process) against the American people.

“Partisanship is our great curse. We too readily assume that everything has two sides and that it is our duty to be on one or the other.”

-James Harvey Robinson, Amercian historian (1863-1936)

The dangerous fawning of the Republicans who place their party and president before their country is still on display this week, despite the mountains of evidence that have proven that the choice to invade Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and that execution of that and the Afghanistan war are massive failures. And they, along with corporatist Democrats who believe they owe their fealty to members of the military industrial complex - including lobbyists for foreign governments like Israel which is now under an even greater threat as a result of the regional destabilization - have sold out their constituents; doomed them to more funerals and the human and financial costs of dealing with the wounded coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan while still creating a hell overseas that they cannot even bring themselves to honestly imagine. Token visits to safe areas like the green zone or tours outside those boundaries under extremely heavy guard do not provide them with an adequate sense of reality. They'd do well to spend time with some of the 2 million refugees, within and outside of Iraq, to really understand exactly what they have wrought. Maybe then they wouldn't keep fiddling while Baghdad and Helmund province in Afghanistan burn as a result of their rash decisions.

So, on this day while America and the world once again mourns for those killed on 9/11, who is mourning for the hundreds of thousands who have died due to the need for revenge that followed that day 6 years ago?

And the question that once again hangs in the air is simple: Was it all worth it?

And who has been held accountable? Keith Olbermann offers "No truth, no consequences":


Where is the mass rebellion?

Update: The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border

British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a "proxy war".

In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.

And so it begins...
 

Random News & Views Roundup

- When the going gets tough, the weak run to Baghdad for a photo op. Although, Bush and Cheney may just be hoping that Abu Gonzales runs into one of those pesky IEDs. Then they can literally kill two annoying birds with one stone: the Gonzales problem - gone - and they can blame Iran on top of it. Oh no, I'm starting to think like them...must be a virus...I'd better take some medication. There is medication, right?

- Mitt "Ken Doll™" Romney won the Iowa straw pall on Saturday. What a manly man:

AMES, Iowa (Reuters) - Republican Mitt Romney won the first test of the 2008 White House race on Saturday, using a big wallet and broad organization to muscle aside a field of second-tier rivals in a low-turnout Iowa straw poll.

Hell, that description's almost porn film worthy. Show me your big wallet and your broad shoulders, muscle man. (Not that I've ever actually seen a porn film. *cough*)

- Some kind of beam was installed on the space station today. I think they may be planning to make the Canadian astronaut walk the plank. I hear he's been telling a lot of Bush jokes up there.

- Yasser Arafat was poisoned?

- The Bush administration is nervous about Musharraf's future - so much so that it's assessing Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Not only that:

Musharraf controls the loyalty of the commanders and senior officials in charge of the nuclear program, but those loyalties could shift at any point, officials say.

The United States is not certain who might start controlling nuclear launch codes and weapons if that shift in power were to happen.

That's comforting, isn't it? Musharraf tried his best to provide reassurance on Saturday, which might actually mean something if he wasn't in the middle of huge political mess (of his own creation).

- Gordon Prather: Challenging Bush’s Reality (on Iran).

- Ben Tripp: On Fleeing the Country (a good read)
 

Random News & Views Roundup

- The Bombing of Nagasaki August 9, 1945: The Untold Story

At 11:02 am, Nagasaki Christianity was boiled, evaporated and carbonized in a scorching, radioactive fireball. The persecuted, vibrant, faithful, surviving center of Japanese Christianity had become ground zero.

And what the Japanese Imperial government could not do in over 200 years of persecution, American Christians did in 9 seconds. The entire worshipping community of Nagasaki was wiped out.

Take a moment to remember all of the victims.

- Musharraf has called off declaring a state of emergency after getting his hand slapped by Bush and Condi.

- As the British prepare to leave Basra:

"Basra's residents and militiamen view this not as an orderly withdrawal but rather as an ignominious defeat," according to a report by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) on Basra published in June. "Today, the city is controlled by militias, seemingly more powerful and unconstrained than before."
[...]
The outlook for the two million people in Basra, Iraq's second largest city, is not good. According to the ICG report, violence in the city has little to do with sectarianism or anti-occupation resistance but involves "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighbourhood vigilantism... together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors."

- Bush...press conference...Iran...blah blah blah...yawn. This was the highlight:

Bush downplayed reports from Tehran that al-Maliki and Ahmadinejad appeared warm and friendly, including pictures of the two men smiling and holding hands as they appeared at a news conference.

"You want to be cordial with the person you're with. You don't want to be duking it out," said Bush, who jokingly posed in a boxing stance at his podium. "I'm not surprised there's a picture showing people smiling."

Just call him Boxer Guy

- Meanwhile, Darth Cheney has reportedly been pushing for "airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force...according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy." Another handy WH leak to put more pressure on Iran, no doubt.

- How's that "spreading democracy" thing going for you, Bush?

The paradox of American policy in the Middle East — promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the West — is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose.

Lebanon’s voters in the Metn district, in other words, appeared to have joined the Palestinians, who voted for Hamas; the Iraqis, who voted for a government sympathetic to Iran; and the Egyptians, who have voted in growing numbers in recent elections for the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. “No politician can afford to identify with the West because poll after poll shows people don’t believe in the U.S. agenda,” said Mustafa Hamarneh, until recently the director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan. Mr. Hamarneh is running for a seat in Jordan’s Parliament in November, but he says he has made a point of keeping his campaign focused locally, and on bread-and-butter issues. “If somebody goes after you as pro-American he can hurt you,” he said.

- Simon Jenkins in The Guardian:

It takes inane optimism to see victory in Afghanistan

This war against the Taliban is part of a post-imperial spasm. The longer it is waged, the graver the consequences
[...]
Iraq is post-imperialism for fast learners, Afghanistan for slow ones.
[...]
In the provinces, the Americans are running a guerrilla army out of Bagram, trying to kill as many "Taliban" or "al-Qaida" as possible, while the British heroically re-enact the Zulu wars down in Helmand. Neither takes any notice of President Hamid Karzai, whose deals with warlords, druglords, Iranians and Taliban collaborators are probably the best hope of stabilising Afghanistan when the foreign occupation is over. But since that is claimed by Britain to be virtually never, the only certainty is a rising tempo of insurgency.

read the rest...

Martial Law in Pakistan?

That's the rumour floating around in the western media and, according to the PakTribune and the Pakistan Daily Times:

ISLAMABAD: A decision whether or not to impose a state of emergency in the country hangs in the balance and is expected any time, high-level sources told Daily Times.

“It is now a matter of days,” said a senior Muslim Leaguer close to the president. “The president’s kitchen cabinet deliberated on the issue last night and his advisers pressed him to impose emergency in view of the current political situation in which certain unexpected decisions on various constitutional petitions including the one related to his uniform are expected,” he added.

The kitchen sink had no comment.

I jest, but this is deadly serious for Pakistanis as they stand to lose their civil rights if Musharraf does declare martial law. His back is up against the wall with his refusal to step down as army chief (an issue that has plagued him since he came into power); increasing pressure to go after al Qaeda in the north with rumblings from the US that it will launch unilateral strikes in the region even as it tries to get the Afghan and Pakistani governments to work it out in a "peace jirga" (which Musharraf has backed out of at the last minute); the political and violent repercussions from the bombing of the Red Mosque; his mishandling of the suspension of the country's chief justice; not to mention the many assassination attempts made against him - among other issues.

Of course, the most dangerous aspect of all of this is that Pakistan is a nuclear state. Perhaps the Bush administration saw this move coming when it recently decided to make a nuclear deal with India (.pdf file of the agreement). (Apparently, the Times of India refers to Musharraf as "Mush", which he may soon be if he makes this move.)

Pakistani hardliners are less than impressed with all of the rhetoric coming out of DC and the '08 election race - a la Obama saying he was willing to bypass Pakistan's sovereignty, if necessary, to go into Pakistan's tribal areas. Obama's comments are apparently being seen by some Democrats on Daily Kos as being a good thing: "If Pakistan Captures Bin Laden Now, Can Obama Take Credit?" is the naive question being asked as Musharraf uses statements like Obama's to justify imposing martial law:

Under Pakistan's constitution, the head of state _ the president _ may declare a state of emergency if it is deemed that the country's security is "threatened by war or external aggression, or by internal disturbance beyond" the government's authority to control.

How any Democrat could claim this is some sort of victory for Obama is beyond me.

Stay tuned.
 

More Trouble in Pakistan

The peace deal the Musharraf government had signed with the northern tribes is dead.

Pro-Taliban militants in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan on the Afghan border on Sunday called off the peace deal signed in September after accusing Pakistani authorities of violating the pact.

Under it, Pakistan agreed to stop military operations against the militants in return for their pledge to not send fighters across the border into Afghanistan and would not launch attacks on Pakistan's army.

A militant leadership council said it was dropping out because Pakistani forces had launched several attacks on them and the government had deployed more troops in the region.

On Saturday, suicide bombers killed almost 70 Pakistani troops and civilians in the region and, according to AFP, a jihad has now been declared over the attack of the Red Mosque.

Stephen Hadley was busy making the rounds on as many Sunday morning talk shows as he could manage to declare US support for Musharraf.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is fully backing a Pakistani military crackdown on hotbeds of al Qaeda and Taliban activity amid mounting concern over terrorism, President George W. Bush's national security adviser said on Sunday.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's 10-month-old peace deal with tribal elders in northwestern Pakistan that was aimed at marginalizing pro-Taliban militants, has failed, said Stephen Hadley, the adviser.

"It has not worked the way he wanted. It has not worked the way we wanted it," he said on the ABC television program "This Week."

Concern about a resurgent militant threat has grown over the last two months, Hadley added. "And we're responding to it ... In the short run, we need to take it on operationally," he said without elaborating.

Musharraf, a key ally in the U.S.-declared global war on terrorism, has been moving more troops into western areas of the country near the Afghan border, said Hadley, who appeared on four U.S. network interview programs.

"We are supporting that effort in order to get control of the situation," he told ABC.

He added on CNN's "Late Edition" program: "We have provided all appropriate support that we can consistent with Pakistani sovereignty,"

Shorter Hadley: It's official. American bombers are moving in. Screw sovereignty.

For insight from a Pakistani perspective, read this editorial in the Pakistan times.

Here's an excerpt:

Answering questions at a Congressional hearing, Ms. Rice said that, “frankly speaking Pakistan’s agreement with Waziristan tribal leaders is not working”.

The implication was that Pakistan must give up the idea of political solution of the issue and resume the military operation, and that too of the level and magnitude determined by Washington.

Its is not realized by the American policy makers that after earlier loss of more than six hundred troops in the Waziri conflict, people of Pakistan are not willing to support the military operation anymore.

Another reason, perhaps the foremost, is that in the rugged mountains of Waziristan or for that matter any other tribal community, it is almost impossible to differentiate between a terrorist and simple tribesman.

They all carry guns, are born guerilla fighters, and strongly believe in “badal” or revenge. When the governor of NWFP says that it would be an unwinable war, he is not far from the truth. History supports the outlook of Governor Aurakzai.

The Mughals from Akbar the great to Aurangzeb could not subjugate the Pushtoon tribes; the British met the same fate and the Russians in the process lost an empire. The resurgence of so called Taliban is no different.

It shows that despite unprecedented bombing and destruction of their military structure albeit rag-tag, their spirit for independence could not be destroyed.

They're Just More Dead Civilians

The stories about the unending deaths of Afghan civilians, mainly as the result of "air strikes" (which is just a PC way of saying bombings), eat away at me.

Note the latest news:

More than 100 people, nearly half of them Afghan civilians, were killed in Nato air strikes against the Taliban this weekend, an investigation by local officials in Helmand province has concluded.

This, on the heels of repeated outcries for NATO to be more damn responsible while NATO spokespuppets issue the standard, meaningless apologies. It's just insulting. And although Karzai is trying to wrest control of the situation, he is virtually powerless to do anything to stop the killings while NATO's chief just wants to pay off the families and move on. (And what's the big topic of the day at that conference about Afghanistan? How much judges get paid. Get real.)

He [Karzai] has repeatedly called on US, Nato and Taliban forces to do more to prevent civilian casualties, warning that "Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such". And he has ordered foreign forces to co-ordinate military operations with the Afghan government. "From now on, they have to work the way we ask them to work in here."

Good luck with that. It's not going to happen.

And the military always uses the same excuse:

Major John Thomas, an Isaf spokesman told the Associated Press: "We don't mean to trivialise any of those who died but we want to make it clear that we believe the numbers are a dozen or less."

He blamed the Taliban for the civilian deaths, saying: "It's the enemy fighters who willingly fire when civilians are right next to them."

Now tell me, if London had decided to launch "air strikes" on Belfast to root out IRA terrorists, does anyone think this "human shield" line would have passed muster? Are you kidding me?

We are taught that "civilian casualties" are acceptable during war time but, while some may be absolutely unavoidable, when you have a situation like the one in Afghanistan where more ordinary people are being killed by the allied forces than by insurgents, isn't it time to rethink the military strategy - a strategy, by the way, which everyone has agreed will not even end the war there? Britain's government officials expect to be there for decades.

The US military is now also expanding attacks into Pakistan. How many more civilians will they kill there while their military pretends that fewer are dead than the real counts show?

Now, read this carefully:

Operations inside Pakistan might be carried out independently by the United States, probably with air power, by Pakistani forces acting alone or as joint offensives. In all cases, though, the US will pull the strings, for instance by providing the Pakistanis with information on targets to hit.

Musharraf has apparently already told his military commanders, the National Security Council and decision-makers in government of the development.

Officially, both NATO and Pakistan deny any agreement on hot-pursuit activities. Major John Thomas, spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, told Asia Times Online, "The ISAF would not strike any targets across the border. That is not part of our mission. We work with the Pakistani government closely on cross-border issues. The ISAF does not have a counter-terrorism mission that I know of."

NATO is supposed to be in charge of military operations in Afghanistan, yet US forces are still free to do whatever they want to? Is it any wonder the place is still such a mess? And if the ISAF's mission does not include counter-terrorism, what is it still doing in Afghanistan?

This statement is from NATO's web site:

NATO is contributing to the fight against terrorism through military operations in Afghanistan, the Balkans and the Mediterranean and by taking steps to protect its populations and territory against terrorist attacks.

And this:

ISAF’s key military tasks include assisting the Afghan government in extending its authority across the country, conducting stability and security operations in co-ordination with the Afghan national security forces; mentoring and supporting the Afghan national army; and supporting Afghan government programmes to disarm illegally armed groups.

No counter-terrorism mission for ISAF? You're kidding, right?

In addition to that, as far as NATO involvement in attacks inside Pakistan go:

Islamabad on June 25 urged NATO-led forces to exercise “restraint” while conducting operations against Taliban fighters in Afghanistan along its border, days after scores of civilians were killed in air strikes by coalition planes and helicopter gunships inside Pakistan.

NATO forces reportedly fired several missiles on June 22 at two villages, leaving at least 33 people dead and more than 70 wounded in North and South Waziristan.

“This incident underscores the need for better coordination, care and restraint by NATO forces, especially when they are operating close to the border,” foreign office spokeswoman Tasneem Aslam told reporters in Islamabad. “We have protested against this incident and we condemn the killing of civilians,” she added.

And I have to mention that the NATO leadership looked incredibly stupid after that:

NATO-led forces admitted June 25 that during an anti-insurgent operation near the shared border, their forces had mistakenly tracked rebels into Pakistani territory and killed up to 10 civilians.

“We regret two things: one that we mistakenly operated inside the Pakistani border, and secondly we regret the loss of civilians in our operation,” an International Security Assistance Force spokesman, Major John Thomas, said in Kabul.

Trained military personnel who don't know how to read maps or use a freaking compass or GPS system? Who are they trying to kid?

And meanwhile, on the Pakistan front, guess who's running the show for those operations?

Senior US officials, including John Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, and Richard Boucher, the assistant secretary of state, recently visited Pakistan to spell out to opposition leaders that the US is still behind Musharraf, although it will support the participation of secular, democratic political parties in government.

This development occurred even as Washington voiced its dissatisfaction over Musharraf's performance with regard to the Taliban: it pointed to Pakistan's clear involvement in supporting the insurgency in Helmand province since last year.

Indeed, the US was even prepared to withdraw its support of Musharraf, who seized power in 1999, but after a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney to Pakistan, the general remains in favor. Cheney's office is believed to run the United States' Pakistan policy.

What Dick wants, Dick gets. I'll bet he's even counting on flowers and candy.

The reasons are probably twofold: the US needs Pakistan's support should it attack Iran (covert operations into Iran are reportedly already taking place from Pakistan), and the US is concerned over the revival of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan

I think we all know that reason number #1 is the prime motivator for Bushco's continued support of Musharraf - to the tune of $1 billion per year. And Pakistan does have nukes, after all. The US administration knows that Musharraf is between a rock and a hard place politically, so he needs to be propped up in order to survive. Yes, another one of those flourishing "democracies" where Bushco actually runs the place. They're like franchises.

And because Dick just hasn't been able to come up with enough credible evidence to launch his war on Iran now, the newest meme is that there are Iranian weapons in Afghanistan. Karzai denies that charge.

Karzai has said there is no proof the Iranian-marked weapons are provided by Tehran.

"Iran and Afghanistan have never been as friendly as they are today," he said earlier this month.

But a defence ministry general said the government had "evidence", including documents, to prove the weapons were coming into the country for the Taliban, with Tehran's knowledge.

The official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, would not give further details.

Of course he wouldn't. It's spin.

Ratchet up that rhetoric, boys:

"Iran is giving the option to the US that if it does not give Iran a green light on the nuclear issue and its role in the region, Iran can turn Afghanistan into a second Iraq or Vietnam for them," the general said.

Another military general who asked not to be named agreed, saying, "Iran is baring its teeth to the US at this stage" -- but is also capable of destabilising Afghanistan.

I guess since the "hey, there are Iranian-made weapons in Iraq" thing didn't quite cut it, Buscho now has to figure out other ways to convince the world that bombing Iran is an absolute, imminent necessity.

So meanwhile, as these warmongering fools try to stir up even more trouble, they are doing absolutely nothing to make sure that they stop killing innocent people who are obviously just getting in the way of the glorious day when they will win the war on terror - which, by definition, is impossible.

It's a geopolitical game played on the backs of innocents. War for war's sake. War for profiteering. War for oil. Why should they care about dead men, women and children?

It's infuriating and it needs to end. What the hell is my country doing over there?

Related: Wiki's count of civilian deaths in Afghanistan since 2001
 

Chaos in Pakistan

Pakistan is a powder keg:

KARACHI (Reuters) - A Pakistani opposition strike virtually shut down Karachi and other major cities on Monday after nearly 40 people were killed and about 150 wounded in Pakistan's worst political street violence in two decades.

Authorities banned demonstrations in Karachi and declared a public holiday across Sindh province after the weekend violence in the city, which began when Pakistan's suspended top judge tried to meet supporters.

The government has authorized paramilitary troops to shoot anyone involved in serious violence in Karachi, Pakistan's biggest city, which has a history of bloody feuding between ethnic-based factions.

This all erupted from Musharraf's decision to remove Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in March. You may recall the news stories of mass protests by lawyers following that move.

Since Chaudhry was suspended, many lawyers and senior judges have resigned [JURIST report] and boycotted courts [JURIST report] across Pakistan in an effort to prompt Chaudhry's reinstatement. Chaudhry denies any wrongdoing and has called for the hearings to be made public [JURIST report]. The chief justice has been active in cases involving people allegedly abducted by state security personnel and the privatization of state assets and has handed down decisions which many say Musharraf views as a threat to his continued rule.
(embedded links)

The BBC has more background and this Pakistan Daily Times editorial outlines the political challenges Musharraf now faces.

The Bush administration has treated Musharraf with kid gloves - trying to convince the world that Musharraf is cooperating in dealing with GWOT threats while Musharraf stated in his memoir that he was told to cooperate or face having his country bombed. He also wrote that the CIA paid the Pakistani government hundreds of millions of dollars to hand over suspected terrorists.

His actions, however, have too often been those appeasement rather than strength. The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is still the main conduit for Taliban insurgents* and Hamid Karzai has well-known grievances with Musharraf that Bush tried unsuccessfully to mediate last year. And then, of course, there was the extremely awkward move by Musharraf to pardon AQ Khan who is now being protected by Pakistan's government while beig shielded from questions and the fact that, as ABC News reported in February, Cheney felt he actually had to show Musharraf CIA evidence about the presence of al-Qaeda in Pakistan in order to convince him there was still a problem.

"President Musharraf is the kind of man who doesn't move until he sees the hard facts in front of his face," said Mansoor Ijaz, a counterterrorism analyst who has dealt with Musharraf.

So, just how much of an ally is Musharraf and why has the Bush administration basically turned a blind eye to his non-compliance? Maybe it's because, as this 2002 article described, Bush and Musharraf share a disdain for the democratic will of the people they were elected to serve and both see themselves as being above the law. More likely is the fact that Pakistan is part of the "nuclear club" and the US feels it can exert some measure of control over Musharraf to keep him in line so he doesn't actually use those weapons.

What's unknown at this time is just how much CIA involvement there is in Pakistan to attempt to aid Musharraf through this crisis (although the CIA's actions there in the past have caused some serious problems, but it's not like they care) and whether he can actually last through this storm. Finger-wagging by western governments will just prove to be useless so you just know there's some covert US activity going on there to deal with all of this.

As Edward M Gomez writes for the SFGate, Violence in Pakistan could be bad news for Bush:

The news that its high-paid buddy in Pakistan - General President Pervez Musharraf, the democracy-crushing dictator who has received billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars - is being challenged and may be on the decline can't be good for Team Bush.

Dragged down by its costly, failed adventure in Iraq and mired in corruption scandals back home, the Bush administration has no enthusiastic allies left. If Musharraf falls, it won't look good for Team Bush to have aided him for so long, literally buying his support in its aimless "war on terror." If Musharraf uses heavy-handed tactics to crush Pakistan's pro-democracy movement, that won't look good either for a U.S. administration that still claims to be a big promoter of democracy around the world.

*Canada's government hasn't exactly been very helpful in working towards solving the conflict between Karzai and Musharraf. Foreign affairs minister Peter Mackay offered Musharraf support in January for Musharraf's fence idea, which was staunchly opposed by Afghanistan's government as well as affected Pakistani tribes. At least he did oppose Pakistani government plans to plant land mines on the border.

Related:
U.S., Pakistani soldiers killed in border clash
Up to 7 Afghan troops killed in Pakistan clash
Witness for Pakistan's suspended judge shot dead
Troops told to shoot rioters as death toll mounts in Karachi