Re Op-Ed Contributor: Caution: Taliban Crossing by Arthur Keller (a former C.I.A. case officer in Pakistan) in today's NY Times:
Quote from article: "This year has seen a notable lack of Qaeda members killed or captured in Pakistan. The Afghan government has turned over detailed lists of names and addresses for Taliban members residing in Pakistan, particularly in the city of Quetta. Not only has this information not led to arrests, Pakistan has routinely continued to deny that the Taliban’s leadership is in Quetta. A Pakistani military officer told me last year (in an uncharacteristic fit of honesty): “If we are not catching the Taliban, it is not because the Taliban is so clever, or so good at hiding. We just aren’t trying.”"
The way forward should be clear. We need to establish "death squads" based in Pakistan to hunt down and kill members of al Qaeda and the Taliban who live there. While this may seem outlandish, considering that Pakistan is a sovereign country, it is not. Pakistan forfeited their sovereignty by harboring, aiding and abetting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. To do otherwise sends the following message to our enemy: you can attack the United States of America and then live happily ever after in Pakistan.
Somehow, George W. Bush thought that installing a puppet government in Afghanistan, and then invading Iraq, was the way to deal with our enemy. Clearly, such an insane policy was doomed to failure, and failure is what we are living with today.
I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know who our next president will be, but I hope we get someone who is willing to do whatever it takes to crush our enemy and finally win the War on Terror.
Showing posts with label Al Qaeda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Qaeda. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
Down With General Musharraf
The world will be a better off without General Pervez Musharraf leading Pakistan.
Strangely, the United States supported Musharraf for years. Yet, when he was just a general, before his coup ousting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999, Musharraf was fomenting an Islamic terrorist insurgency in India's Kashmir territory, and this helped create a rift between himself and Sharif. This is just one of many examples of the US supporting "freedom fighters" who turn against us. Which is why the US must learn to mind its own business.
It appears that either Sharif or Benazir Bhutto (or both in a unity government) will come out on top of Pakistan in 2008. This will be good. The US should give moral support to democracy in Pakistan, and try to have friendly relations with Pakistan's rulers, but we should not repeat the mistakes we made supporting Musharraf with billions of dollars in foreign aid.
Instead, we should make it clear to the next government in Pakistan that we expect them to rein in the Islamic insurgency in its western, tribal regions, and give us Osama bin Laden, or else we will take matters into our own hands. After all, we are at war with al Qaeda.
Strangely, the United States supported Musharraf for years. Yet, when he was just a general, before his coup ousting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999, Musharraf was fomenting an Islamic terrorist insurgency in India's Kashmir territory, and this helped create a rift between himself and Sharif. This is just one of many examples of the US supporting "freedom fighters" who turn against us. Which is why the US must learn to mind its own business.
It appears that either Sharif or Benazir Bhutto (or both in a unity government) will come out on top of Pakistan in 2008. This will be good. The US should give moral support to democracy in Pakistan, and try to have friendly relations with Pakistan's rulers, but we should not repeat the mistakes we made supporting Musharraf with billions of dollars in foreign aid.
Instead, we should make it clear to the next government in Pakistan that we expect them to rein in the Islamic insurgency in its western, tribal regions, and give us Osama bin Laden, or else we will take matters into our own hands. After all, we are at war with al Qaeda.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Sicko Saudi Arabia
Re Op-Ed Columnist: The Case for Illegal Mingling by Thomas L. Friedman in today's NY Times:
The government of Saudi Arabia "affirmed the sentence of 200 lashes for a 19-year-old Shiite girl who was sitting in a car with a male acquaintance last year when they were attacked by seven men who gang-raped both of them.
"The Saudi Justice Ministry said the young woman deserved 200 lashes and six months in prison, even though she had been raped, because she was guilty of “illegal mingling” — sitting in a car with a man who was not related to her."
What is the ideology which drives such barbarism? It has a name - Islam!
Now, Tom Friedman is Mr. Politically Correct, so what really galls him about this barbarism? "Two hundred lashes for a woman who was raped, under any circumstances in even the most traditional country, is barbaric — period." So far, so good. "But what also keeps tripping off my tongue is this phrase “illegal mingling.” It seems to me that if the Middle East could use more of anything these days it is more mingling — if not between the sexes then at least between the sects." So, he spends the rest of his column arguing for more "mingling". Too bad he doesn't have the courage to write what he no doubt is thinking: Islam is a barbaric ideology.
Tom quotes a report from Agence France-Presse: "“The Mahdi Army murdered and tortured and kidnapped people under Sharia law,” the police statement said. “They are the cause of the deaths of hundreds of people.”" Now, what the heck is Sharia? Islamic law! Yet, Tom is still focused on the sectarian strife.
The rationale behind Tom's thinking is then made plain: "The reason these events are important is that Iraq has become center stage for the struggle between a more moderate, modernizing Islamic outlook, advanced by the United States and some of its Iraqi allies, and another outlook, advanced by the Mahdi Army and Al Qaeda, that wants to “purify” the Muslim world of “the other.”
"The jihadists know that if they can defeat America — in the heart of their world — it would influence the whole region."
In other words, Tom is still trying to justify our insane invasion of Iraq, which he advocated. Still, he has learned a bit: "Attention: These pro-minglers are not Jeffersonian Democrats. But they do represent relatively more moderate strands of Sunnism and Shiism." Oh, I guess supporting the "moderate" Muslims is the reason why we are pouring blood and treasure into Iraq.
Finally, Tom ends with "Most Americans would still like to see us salvage something decent in Iraq — if it can be done at a reasonable cost."
Tom, nothing that can happen in Iraq will ever be worth the steep cost in blood and money that we have paid and have yet to pay. Those of us who have read your column for years have only one request of you: admit you were catastrophically wrong about Iraq, and stop pandering to the foreign Muslims. Until they turn Osama bin Laden over to us, they remain our mortal enemy.
The government of Saudi Arabia "affirmed the sentence of 200 lashes for a 19-year-old Shiite girl who was sitting in a car with a male acquaintance last year when they were attacked by seven men who gang-raped both of them.
"The Saudi Justice Ministry said the young woman deserved 200 lashes and six months in prison, even though she had been raped, because she was guilty of “illegal mingling” — sitting in a car with a man who was not related to her."
What is the ideology which drives such barbarism? It has a name - Islam!
Now, Tom Friedman is Mr. Politically Correct, so what really galls him about this barbarism? "Two hundred lashes for a woman who was raped, under any circumstances in even the most traditional country, is barbaric — period." So far, so good. "But what also keeps tripping off my tongue is this phrase “illegal mingling.” It seems to me that if the Middle East could use more of anything these days it is more mingling — if not between the sexes then at least between the sects." So, he spends the rest of his column arguing for more "mingling". Too bad he doesn't have the courage to write what he no doubt is thinking: Islam is a barbaric ideology.
Tom quotes a report from Agence France-Presse: "“The Mahdi Army murdered and tortured and kidnapped people under Sharia law,” the police statement said. “They are the cause of the deaths of hundreds of people.”" Now, what the heck is Sharia? Islamic law! Yet, Tom is still focused on the sectarian strife.
The rationale behind Tom's thinking is then made plain: "The reason these events are important is that Iraq has become center stage for the struggle between a more moderate, modernizing Islamic outlook, advanced by the United States and some of its Iraqi allies, and another outlook, advanced by the Mahdi Army and Al Qaeda, that wants to “purify” the Muslim world of “the other.”
"The jihadists know that if they can defeat America — in the heart of their world — it would influence the whole region."
In other words, Tom is still trying to justify our insane invasion of Iraq, which he advocated. Still, he has learned a bit: "Attention: These pro-minglers are not Jeffersonian Democrats. But they do represent relatively more moderate strands of Sunnism and Shiism." Oh, I guess supporting the "moderate" Muslims is the reason why we are pouring blood and treasure into Iraq.
Finally, Tom ends with "Most Americans would still like to see us salvage something decent in Iraq — if it can be done at a reasonable cost."
Tom, nothing that can happen in Iraq will ever be worth the steep cost in blood and money that we have paid and have yet to pay. Those of us who have read your column for years have only one request of you: admit you were catastrophically wrong about Iraq, and stop pandering to the foreign Muslims. Until they turn Osama bin Laden over to us, they remain our mortal enemy.
Graft In British Defense Industry
Re Payload: Taking Aim at Corporate Bribery by Nelson D. Schwartz and Lowell Bergman in today's NY Times:
Before getting to the heart of this issue, it is curious how former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who botched things catastrophically just before and after 9/11, now works for the Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the kingdom’s former ambassador to the United States. (He is not alone. So does "one of the fathers of the F.C.P.A., the retired federal judge Stanley Sporkin". It often seems that people who work honorably all their lives, very often switch sides just in time to ruin their legacies. Then again, maybe Freeh figured he had already ruined his legacy.)
F.C.P.A. stands for "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act". This is one of the key laws with which the US is attempting to fight graft in international business.
It seems that the Brits have a real knack for bribery, and the big defense contractor BAE is the master of graft. Even Tony Blair is in favor of bribing the Saudis in order to get defense contracts with the Islamic country most affiliated with our mortal enemy, al Qaeda.
Of course, the US has its share of shady businesses, even if we are not in the same league as GB. "Halliburton, an oil services giant that was once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has disclosed that it is facing an F.C.P.A. investigation into its activities in Nigeria before, during and after Mr. Cheney’s tenure at the company. A spokeswoman for the vice president declined to comment. Halliburton did not respond to an interview request."
The article focuses mostly on the corrupt practices and gall which permeate the British company BAE.
"BAE said it is unaware of any investigations of the company in Hungary. “BAE Systems has very strong policies and processes in place which it is clearly committed to communicating to its employees and advisers,” a spokesman said. “Any action which is unlawful, dishonest, harmful to others or otherwise against our policies, is unacceptable.”"
Corruption on the scale of international business is always difficult to prove in courts of justice, especially when heads of state (e.g., Tony Blair) and turncoats like Louis Freeh are involved. Still, one can only hope that the threat of prison, fines and destroyed reputations will be able to overcome the enormous greed which incites BAE-scale graft.
Before getting to the heart of this issue, it is curious how former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who botched things catastrophically just before and after 9/11, now works for the Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the kingdom’s former ambassador to the United States. (He is not alone. So does "one of the fathers of the F.C.P.A., the retired federal judge Stanley Sporkin". It often seems that people who work honorably all their lives, very often switch sides just in time to ruin their legacies. Then again, maybe Freeh figured he had already ruined his legacy.)
F.C.P.A. stands for "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act". This is one of the key laws with which the US is attempting to fight graft in international business.
It seems that the Brits have a real knack for bribery, and the big defense contractor BAE is the master of graft. Even Tony Blair is in favor of bribing the Saudis in order to get defense contracts with the Islamic country most affiliated with our mortal enemy, al Qaeda.
Of course, the US has its share of shady businesses, even if we are not in the same league as GB. "Halliburton, an oil services giant that was once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has disclosed that it is facing an F.C.P.A. investigation into its activities in Nigeria before, during and after Mr. Cheney’s tenure at the company. A spokeswoman for the vice president declined to comment. Halliburton did not respond to an interview request."
The article focuses mostly on the corrupt practices and gall which permeate the British company BAE.
"BAE said it is unaware of any investigations of the company in Hungary. “BAE Systems has very strong policies and processes in place which it is clearly committed to communicating to its employees and advisers,” a spokesman said. “Any action which is unlawful, dishonest, harmful to others or otherwise against our policies, is unacceptable.”"
Corruption on the scale of international business is always difficult to prove in courts of justice, especially when heads of state (e.g., Tony Blair) and turncoats like Louis Freeh are involved. Still, one can only hope that the threat of prison, fines and destroyed reputations will be able to overcome the enormous greed which incites BAE-scale graft.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Why Our Military Cannot Manage An Exit From Iraq
Our military is trained in fighting wars and countering insurgencies. It is really not trained in nation-building, and it is definitely neither trained nor suited for making foreign policy.
Recent news reports indicate, at a minimum, a temporary reduction in hostilities in Iraq. An optimist would even go so far as to say that the corner has turned, and the American engagement in Iraq is now in the end stage.
In an excellent article in today's NY Times by Michael R. Gordon, Plan Increases Role of G.I.'s in Iraq Training , we are told the specific operational tactics by our military to expedite the reduction of the American military role in Iraq. It is a slow process, and still very costly in blood and treasure. Despite the costs, it appears that there is light at the end of this tunnel.
But this report still infuriates many of us. The criticism of the American invasion of Iraq was never that it was an impossible task, but always a too costly project in terms of blood and treasure, and, most importantly, the wrong project.
After we were attacked on 9/11, the objective should have been the complete destruction of our enemy, al Qaeda. Invading Iraq was never the means to accomplish that goal. Bush's war in Iraq has actually helped our enemy, because it has weakened us, aided the recruitment of troops by our enemy, and taken our eyes off the real target of our revenge.
Every day that Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and the rest of al Qaeda are left breathing and free to attack us again, marks another day of failure for the United States, and we are now more than six years after the 9/11 attack. When I consider all that FDR and his generation did in less than four years after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, it sickens me that we are still being led by the most incompetent President in American history.
Recent news reports indicate, at a minimum, a temporary reduction in hostilities in Iraq. An optimist would even go so far as to say that the corner has turned, and the American engagement in Iraq is now in the end stage.
In an excellent article in today's NY Times by Michael R. Gordon, Plan Increases Role of G.I.'s in Iraq Training , we are told the specific operational tactics by our military to expedite the reduction of the American military role in Iraq. It is a slow process, and still very costly in blood and treasure. Despite the costs, it appears that there is light at the end of this tunnel.
But this report still infuriates many of us. The criticism of the American invasion of Iraq was never that it was an impossible task, but always a too costly project in terms of blood and treasure, and, most importantly, the wrong project.
After we were attacked on 9/11, the objective should have been the complete destruction of our enemy, al Qaeda. Invading Iraq was never the means to accomplish that goal. Bush's war in Iraq has actually helped our enemy, because it has weakened us, aided the recruitment of troops by our enemy, and taken our eyes off the real target of our revenge.
Every day that Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and the rest of al Qaeda are left breathing and free to attack us again, marks another day of failure for the United States, and we are now more than six years after the 9/11 attack. When I consider all that FDR and his generation did in less than four years after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, it sickens me that we are still being led by the most incompetent President in American history.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Where Our Enemies Live
Foreign Fighters in Iraq Are Tied to Allies of U.S. by Richard A. Oppel Jr. in today's NY Times shows where the foreign al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq come from. The leading source countries are no surprise: Saudi Arabia, Libya, Algeria, and Morocco. These countries should head our list of bombing targets in the event that we finally decide to win and therefore end the war on terror, and/or we are attacked again on our homeland.
Here is the first of several quotes from the article:
"The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid’s target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq.
The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006....
About four out of every five detainees in American detention centers are Sunni Arab, even though Sunni Arabs make up just one-fifth of Iraq’s population."
This is why it is puzzling that so many pundits warn us not to withdraw from Iraq for fear that the Shiites in Iraq and Iran would slaughter the Iraqi Sunnis. In my book, that would be a great outcome, since not only are most of the insurgents we are fighting in Iraq Sunni, but also because the 9/11 attackers were all Sunni.
"American military and diplomatic officials who discussed the flow of fighters from Saudi Arabia were careful to draw a distinction between the Saudi government and the charities and individuals who they said encouraged young Saudi men to fight in Iraq. After United States officials put pressure on Saudi leaders in the summer, the Saudi government took some steps that have begun to curb the flow of fighters, the officials said."
Our foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia is irrational. First, their government did not take the required steps to curb the flow of fighters for several years, until we "prodded" them. Second, that government is a dictatorship which does not even represent the majority of the Saudi population, which hates us even more than the government. "Yet the senior American military officials said they also believed that Saudi citizens provided the majority of financing for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." I believe that "Saudi citizens provided the majority of financing for Al Qaeda" period. Ditto for the warm bodies as well.
"The largest foreign fighter hometown was Darnah, Libya, which supplied 50 fighters." So, add that city to our list of future bombing targets.
"For years American officials included Libya on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. But last year the United States removed it from that list and re-established full diplomatic relations, citing what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described as Libya’s “continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation” it has provided in the antiterrorism fight." What leadership! "But there were no Lebanese listed among the Sinjar trove, and only 56 Syrians, or 8 percent of the total." So, Lebanon, if not removed completely from the list of future bombing targets, should be placed at the very end of any such list.
"Saudis brought more money per person than fighters from other nations, the American officials said." No surprise. Every time we buy gasoline for our cars, we are giving money to Saudis who use it to kill Americans.
"Among the Saudi fighters described in the materials, 45 had come from Riyadh, 38 from Mecca, 20 from Buraidah and the surrounding area, 15 from Jawf and Sakakah, 13 from Jidda, and 12 from Medina." This suggests a priority list of targets by our bombers. Mecca and Medina also have symbolic value, since our enemy's religion plays such a large role in the present war.
"Sunni tribal sheiks in Iraq who risked their lives to fight extremist militants also faulted Saudi clerics." This demonstrates clearly that not all Muslims are our enemy. We should always be mindful that we can break the spirit of our enemy by killing large numbers of them and yet only a tiny percentage of them. That is how we won World War II.
Another example of the role Islam plays in this war: "“The bad imams tell the young people to go to Iraq and fight the American Army, because if you kill them or they kill you, you will go to paradise,” Sheik Adnan Khames Jamiel, a leader of the Albu Alwan tribe in Ramadi, said in an interview."
Islam is by no means a monolith, and we can use the ancient tactic of divide and conquer to defeat our enemy: "... the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdulaziz al-Asheik, condemned “mischievous parties” who send young Saudis abroad to carry out “heinous acts which have no association with Islam whatsoever.”"
The raid on Sinjar "happened in the predawn hours of Sept. 11, when American forces acting on a tip surrounded some tents six miles from the Syrian border". What irony.
"Most of the fighters smuggled by the cell were believed to have flown into Damascus Airport, and the rest came into Syria overland through Jordan, the officials said.
In some cases, one senior American military official said, Syrian authorities captured fighters and released them after determining they were not a threat to the Syrian government. Syria has made some recent efforts to turn back or detain suspected foreign fighters bound for Iraq, he said, adding, “The key word is ‘some.’”" As I have long argued, Syria should certainly be near the top of our target list, perhaps right after the "kingdom" of Saudi Arabia.
Here is the first of several quotes from the article:
"The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid’s target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq.
The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006....
About four out of every five detainees in American detention centers are Sunni Arab, even though Sunni Arabs make up just one-fifth of Iraq’s population."
This is why it is puzzling that so many pundits warn us not to withdraw from Iraq for fear that the Shiites in Iraq and Iran would slaughter the Iraqi Sunnis. In my book, that would be a great outcome, since not only are most of the insurgents we are fighting in Iraq Sunni, but also because the 9/11 attackers were all Sunni.
"American military and diplomatic officials who discussed the flow of fighters from Saudi Arabia were careful to draw a distinction between the Saudi government and the charities and individuals who they said encouraged young Saudi men to fight in Iraq. After United States officials put pressure on Saudi leaders in the summer, the Saudi government took some steps that have begun to curb the flow of fighters, the officials said."
Our foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia is irrational. First, their government did not take the required steps to curb the flow of fighters for several years, until we "prodded" them. Second, that government is a dictatorship which does not even represent the majority of the Saudi population, which hates us even more than the government. "Yet the senior American military officials said they also believed that Saudi citizens provided the majority of financing for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." I believe that "Saudi citizens provided the majority of financing for Al Qaeda" period. Ditto for the warm bodies as well.
"The largest foreign fighter hometown was Darnah, Libya, which supplied 50 fighters." So, add that city to our list of future bombing targets.
"For years American officials included Libya on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. But last year the United States removed it from that list and re-established full diplomatic relations, citing what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described as Libya’s “continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation” it has provided in the antiterrorism fight." What leadership! "But there were no Lebanese listed among the Sinjar trove, and only 56 Syrians, or 8 percent of the total." So, Lebanon, if not removed completely from the list of future bombing targets, should be placed at the very end of any such list.
"Saudis brought more money per person than fighters from other nations, the American officials said." No surprise. Every time we buy gasoline for our cars, we are giving money to Saudis who use it to kill Americans.
"Among the Saudi fighters described in the materials, 45 had come from Riyadh, 38 from Mecca, 20 from Buraidah and the surrounding area, 15 from Jawf and Sakakah, 13 from Jidda, and 12 from Medina." This suggests a priority list of targets by our bombers. Mecca and Medina also have symbolic value, since our enemy's religion plays such a large role in the present war.
"Sunni tribal sheiks in Iraq who risked their lives to fight extremist militants also faulted Saudi clerics." This demonstrates clearly that not all Muslims are our enemy. We should always be mindful that we can break the spirit of our enemy by killing large numbers of them and yet only a tiny percentage of them. That is how we won World War II.
Another example of the role Islam plays in this war: "“The bad imams tell the young people to go to Iraq and fight the American Army, because if you kill them or they kill you, you will go to paradise,” Sheik Adnan Khames Jamiel, a leader of the Albu Alwan tribe in Ramadi, said in an interview."
Islam is by no means a monolith, and we can use the ancient tactic of divide and conquer to defeat our enemy: "... the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdulaziz al-Asheik, condemned “mischievous parties” who send young Saudis abroad to carry out “heinous acts which have no association with Islam whatsoever.”"
The raid on Sinjar "happened in the predawn hours of Sept. 11, when American forces acting on a tip surrounded some tents six miles from the Syrian border". What irony.
"Most of the fighters smuggled by the cell were believed to have flown into Damascus Airport, and the rest came into Syria overland through Jordan, the officials said.
In some cases, one senior American military official said, Syrian authorities captured fighters and released them after determining they were not a threat to the Syrian government. Syria has made some recent efforts to turn back or detain suspected foreign fighters bound for Iraq, he said, adding, “The key word is ‘some.’”" As I have long argued, Syria should certainly be near the top of our target list, perhaps right after the "kingdom" of Saudi Arabia.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Prepare to Bomb Pakistan
Re Op-Ed Contributors: Pakistan's Collapse, Our Problem by Frederick W. Kagan and Michael O’Hanlon in today's NY Times: here we go again. Two hawks who argued for us to invade Iraq and want us to stay there indefinitely, are now making the case for the United States to invade Pakistan. It is op-eds like this one which start us down roads which we cannot exit.
As is often the case, we cannot go back in time and implement a different foreign policy. We cannot erase our history of meddling in other countries' affairs. We cannot go back in time and prevent Pakistan from building nukes.
Instead, we must deal with the world the way it actually is today. And that part of the world known as "Pakistan" is a big problem.
Pakistan has 130 million people, five times the population size of Iraq, and probably many times as radical as Iraq, based on the number of madrases which train youth in terrorism, and their support of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Plus, they have scores of nukes.
"It would take a long time to move large numbers of American forces halfway across the world." That's right, but a bigger obstacle is that we don't have any more available troops, thanks to nation-building advocates like Kagan and O'Hanlon.
"And unless we had precise information about the location of all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and materials, we could not rely on bombing or using Special Forces to destroy them." True. But then two paragraphs later they write "One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan’s nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands." How could we do that without knowing the location of the nukes? This is a perfect example of the Alice in Wonderland thinking which underlies our current foreign policy. I wonder how these guys get away with it!
"A second, broader option would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together.... This would require a sizable combat force — not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations." Dream on! We don't have the troop strength, no other Western power wants to get muddled there, and why should we trust any Pakistani troops not to turn on us in the near future? Heck, the regular Pakistani army would be attacking us in no time.
"So, if we got a large number of troops into the country, what would they do? The most likely directive would be to help Pakistan’s military and security forces hold the country’s center — primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad, and the populous areas like Punjab Province to its south." I think the authors are in favor of bringing back the draft without actually saying that.
"We would also have to be wary of internecine warfare within the Pakistani security forces." Understatement of the year!
"Pro-American moderates could well win a fight against extremist sympathizers on their own." Not in this world!
"But they might need help if splinter forces or radical Islamists took control of parts of the country containing crucial nuclear materials." Do you think?
"If a holding operation in the nation’s center was successful, we would probably then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate." For the uninitiated, that is code for "nation building".
I think it would be a great idea if all the nation-building pundits, starting with these two authors, flew to Pakistan and tried to reason with the Islamic fundamentalists over there. Good luck!
So, let's put this in perspective. We were attacked by Islamic fundamentalists on 9/11. They have indicated several times that they plan to attack us with weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). With the government in Pakistan now in a shambles, and with radical Muslims laced all throughout Pakistani society, we have no choice but to warn them today, before it is too late, that if terrorists get their hands on Pakistani nukes and then use them against us, then we will retaliate against Pakistan with thermonuclear bombs. That, of course, would be the end of Pakistan.
Clearly, the problem in Pakistan today is their own problem. We are under absolutely no obligation to help Pakistan with its governance. If the Pakistanis choose to live in a Middle Ages civilization, so be it. But if any of their nukes are used against us, then Pakistan will cease to exist.
In conclusion, Pakistan had better get its act together. It wanted to have nukes. Now it is in the position of having to guard these WMDs with its very existence.
As is often the case, we cannot go back in time and implement a different foreign policy. We cannot erase our history of meddling in other countries' affairs. We cannot go back in time and prevent Pakistan from building nukes.
Instead, we must deal with the world the way it actually is today. And that part of the world known as "Pakistan" is a big problem.
Pakistan has 130 million people, five times the population size of Iraq, and probably many times as radical as Iraq, based on the number of madrases which train youth in terrorism, and their support of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Plus, they have scores of nukes.
"It would take a long time to move large numbers of American forces halfway across the world." That's right, but a bigger obstacle is that we don't have any more available troops, thanks to nation-building advocates like Kagan and O'Hanlon.
"And unless we had precise information about the location of all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and materials, we could not rely on bombing or using Special Forces to destroy them." True. But then two paragraphs later they write "One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan’s nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands." How could we do that without knowing the location of the nukes? This is a perfect example of the Alice in Wonderland thinking which underlies our current foreign policy. I wonder how these guys get away with it!
"A second, broader option would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together.... This would require a sizable combat force — not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations." Dream on! We don't have the troop strength, no other Western power wants to get muddled there, and why should we trust any Pakistani troops not to turn on us in the near future? Heck, the regular Pakistani army would be attacking us in no time.
"So, if we got a large number of troops into the country, what would they do? The most likely directive would be to help Pakistan’s military and security forces hold the country’s center — primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad, and the populous areas like Punjab Province to its south." I think the authors are in favor of bringing back the draft without actually saying that.
"We would also have to be wary of internecine warfare within the Pakistani security forces." Understatement of the year!
"Pro-American moderates could well win a fight against extremist sympathizers on their own." Not in this world!
"But they might need help if splinter forces or radical Islamists took control of parts of the country containing crucial nuclear materials." Do you think?
"If a holding operation in the nation’s center was successful, we would probably then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate." For the uninitiated, that is code for "nation building".
I think it would be a great idea if all the nation-building pundits, starting with these two authors, flew to Pakistan and tried to reason with the Islamic fundamentalists over there. Good luck!
So, let's put this in perspective. We were attacked by Islamic fundamentalists on 9/11. They have indicated several times that they plan to attack us with weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). With the government in Pakistan now in a shambles, and with radical Muslims laced all throughout Pakistani society, we have no choice but to warn them today, before it is too late, that if terrorists get their hands on Pakistani nukes and then use them against us, then we will retaliate against Pakistan with thermonuclear bombs. That, of course, would be the end of Pakistan.
Clearly, the problem in Pakistan today is their own problem. We are under absolutely no obligation to help Pakistan with its governance. If the Pakistanis choose to live in a Middle Ages civilization, so be it. But if any of their nukes are used against us, then Pakistan will cease to exist.
In conclusion, Pakistan had better get its act together. It wanted to have nukes. Now it is in the position of having to guard these WMDs with its very existence.
Gaza, Dreams and Religion
The people of Gaza are living in misery today. Their economy is poor, there are many street gangs inflicting violence on innocent people, and most of the population is despondent. It need not be this way.
Hamas runs Gaza. Hamas orders daily rocket fire at Israel, and plans terrorist attacks against Israelis. Hamas does this because their leaders are Islamic fundamentalists. That ideology will not allow them to stop hating Israel.
Suppose somehow all the people of Gaza, while asleep one night, had the same dream. In this dream, "God" spoke to them and told them that He is not Allah, there is no Allah, Muhammad was not a prophet, and the Koran is a work of fiction; the only way for the people of Gaza to please Him would be for them to make peace with the Israelis, and love their neighbors, and live ethical lives; religion poisons everything; all religions are false; no man can know His mind; He does not want to be worshipped.
The next day, Hamas and all the Muslims in Gaza would renounce Islam; crime would stop; the attacks on Israel would end; the leaders of Hamas would contact the Israeli leaders and state that they have "seen the light" and want peace; a peace treaty with Israel would be signed; all economic sanctions against Gaza would end; all physical barriers between Gaza and Israel would be removed; Gazans and Israelis would live in peace and prosperity.
The former Hamas leaders would spread the Word throughout the Middle East, and all its neighbors would seek peace with Israel. The message of Peace would then spread throughout the Islamic world, and eventually all 1,300,000,000 Muslims would renounce their false religion and try to live in peace with all other peoples. Al Qaeda would cease to exist, and the United States would declare an end to the War on Terror. Gitmo would be closed forever, and all political prisoners of the War on Terror would be released.
This is my dream.
Hamas runs Gaza. Hamas orders daily rocket fire at Israel, and plans terrorist attacks against Israelis. Hamas does this because their leaders are Islamic fundamentalists. That ideology will not allow them to stop hating Israel.
Suppose somehow all the people of Gaza, while asleep one night, had the same dream. In this dream, "God" spoke to them and told them that He is not Allah, there is no Allah, Muhammad was not a prophet, and the Koran is a work of fiction; the only way for the people of Gaza to please Him would be for them to make peace with the Israelis, and love their neighbors, and live ethical lives; religion poisons everything; all religions are false; no man can know His mind; He does not want to be worshipped.
The next day, Hamas and all the Muslims in Gaza would renounce Islam; crime would stop; the attacks on Israel would end; the leaders of Hamas would contact the Israeli leaders and state that they have "seen the light" and want peace; a peace treaty with Israel would be signed; all economic sanctions against Gaza would end; all physical barriers between Gaza and Israel would be removed; Gazans and Israelis would live in peace and prosperity.
The former Hamas leaders would spread the Word throughout the Middle East, and all its neighbors would seek peace with Israel. The message of Peace would then spread throughout the Islamic world, and eventually all 1,300,000,000 Muslims would renounce their false religion and try to live in peace with all other peoples. Al Qaeda would cease to exist, and the United States would declare an end to the War on Terror. Gitmo would be closed forever, and all political prisoners of the War on Terror would be released.
This is my dream.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
How to Win the War on Terror
Osama bin Laden (OBL) and his fellow travelers in al Qaeda (AQ) do not fear death, since they believe that they will go immediately to "paradise" if they are killed in their jihad with us. That is one reason why I wrote in a previous post that we should use carpet bombing in our war with AQ.
The idea is to cause AQ and OBL in particular emotional pain for their acts of war against us. Ideally, if they suffered enough pain, they would eventually surrender to us or be betrayed by their fellow Islamists. But I have also called for the US to use its ample soft power to defeat AQ.
One target of our soft power should be the twisted religious ideology of OBL and AQ. We should get as many Islamic clerics as possible to denounce OBL and AQ, and explain how OBL has mis-read their faith.
But, if it turns out that that does not work because Islam itself is on the side of OBL and AQ (Michael Scheuer's position), then we should take it upon ourselves, in this time of war, to reform Islam ourselves.
As one who does not subscribe to any organized religion, and who agrees with Christopher Hitchens that "religion poisons everything", I have no compunctions about the United States attacking OBL's faith if that is what it will take to win this war. Obviously, if that premise is false, then there is no need for us to take that drastic step. But unless and until we see a groundswell of Islamic clerics from around the world stating unequivocally that OBL and AQ are wrong in their interpretations of Islam, we shall have to assume that task ourselves.
Keep in mind that in a different era, we fought enemies much more powerful than AQ, and they subscribed to ideologies too: Nazism and the worship of the Japanese Emperor. Yet, after we had inflicted enough pain on the populations which supported our enemies, they discarded their ideologies and surrendered unconditionally to us. We should work towards the very same outcome with OBL and AQ.
The idea is to cause AQ and OBL in particular emotional pain for their acts of war against us. Ideally, if they suffered enough pain, they would eventually surrender to us or be betrayed by their fellow Islamists. But I have also called for the US to use its ample soft power to defeat AQ.
One target of our soft power should be the twisted religious ideology of OBL and AQ. We should get as many Islamic clerics as possible to denounce OBL and AQ, and explain how OBL has mis-read their faith.
But, if it turns out that that does not work because Islam itself is on the side of OBL and AQ (Michael Scheuer's position), then we should take it upon ourselves, in this time of war, to reform Islam ourselves.
As one who does not subscribe to any organized religion, and who agrees with Christopher Hitchens that "religion poisons everything", I have no compunctions about the United States attacking OBL's faith if that is what it will take to win this war. Obviously, if that premise is false, then there is no need for us to take that drastic step. But unless and until we see a groundswell of Islamic clerics from around the world stating unequivocally that OBL and AQ are wrong in their interpretations of Islam, we shall have to assume that task ourselves.
Keep in mind that in a different era, we fought enemies much more powerful than AQ, and they subscribed to ideologies too: Nazism and the worship of the Japanese Emperor. Yet, after we had inflicted enough pain on the populations which supported our enemies, they discarded their ideologies and surrendered unconditionally to us. We should work towards the very same outcome with OBL and AQ.
Review of "Imperial Hubris"
I finally completed reading "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer. This book was published in 2004, but it may be the best book available which both explains how we got to this point in the Bush version of the "war on terror", and what we ought to do next.
I do not agree with the former CIA employee Scheuer on everything, but have nothing but respect and admiration for him and his service to our nation. He learned a lot about al Qaeda (AQ) while he was Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station. He explains in detail why we were attacked on 9/11, and how the Bush policies have strengthened AQ while weakening the US.
So, where do we disagree? He elevates bin Laden a bit too much for my taste, and prefers not to call AQ a terrorist organization, but rather a worldwide insurgency. The former stems from his deep understanding of Osama bin Laden (OBL), and the latter from his point that 9/11 was not the act of terrorists but an act of war. A lot of this is just semantics, since I agree with Scheuer in the details.
Scheuer is not correct on how we should fight AQ. It is easy enough to say what we did wrong, but what we should have done in September or even October 2001 is not what we need to do today. Yes, we should have used a massive military invasion force and surrounded and annihilated AQ and OBL. Having failed to do that, the way forward today must be different. I explain how in my next post.
I do not agree with the former CIA employee Scheuer on everything, but have nothing but respect and admiration for him and his service to our nation. He learned a lot about al Qaeda (AQ) while he was Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station. He explains in detail why we were attacked on 9/11, and how the Bush policies have strengthened AQ while weakening the US.
So, where do we disagree? He elevates bin Laden a bit too much for my taste, and prefers not to call AQ a terrorist organization, but rather a worldwide insurgency. The former stems from his deep understanding of Osama bin Laden (OBL), and the latter from his point that 9/11 was not the act of terrorists but an act of war. A lot of this is just semantics, since I agree with Scheuer in the details.
Scheuer is not correct on how we should fight AQ. It is easy enough to say what we did wrong, but what we should have done in September or even October 2001 is not what we need to do today. Yes, we should have used a massive military invasion force and surrounded and annihilated AQ and OBL. Having failed to do that, the way forward today must be different. I explain how in my next post.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Stop Aid To Afghanistan
Re a letter from M. Ashraf Haidari, Political Counselor, Embassy of Afghanistan to the NY Times today ( Letter: Toward Afghan Success ):
"How should we overcome these and other obstacles raised by Mr. Cohen? By ending regional interference as the main source of instability in Afghanistan; long-term Marshall Planning to rebuild Afghan state institutions and the economy; and ensuring international unity of effort to succeed in Afghanistan."
No. We should not try to rebuild Afghanistan; that is their job. We cannot afford to rebuild every country that played a role in 9/11. That would reward the transgressors. Part of the punishment of getting bombed by the United States for attacking us on 9/11 is the cost of rebuilding. That price should be paid by Afghans for harboring al Qaeda. We Americans should not have to pay twice for 9/11.
"How should we overcome these and other obstacles raised by Mr. Cohen? By ending regional interference as the main source of instability in Afghanistan; long-term Marshall Planning to rebuild Afghan state institutions and the economy; and ensuring international unity of effort to succeed in Afghanistan."
No. We should not try to rebuild Afghanistan; that is their job. We cannot afford to rebuild every country that played a role in 9/11. That would reward the transgressors. Part of the punishment of getting bombed by the United States for attacking us on 9/11 is the cost of rebuilding. That price should be paid by Afghans for harboring al Qaeda. We Americans should not have to pay twice for 9/11.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Intellectual Arrogance
The Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines arrogance as "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions".
I enjoy tweaking intellectual arrogance. That is because we have such tiny brains and such low intelligence, and yet man presumes to know so much. As I said in the previous post, if there is a God, He must be laughing at us.
The ideologues of every stripe are the most foolish. (You know who you are. You are the "true believers".) This is a very large set of people. Of course, it includes the stated enemy of the United States: al Qaeda (AQ). It includes all religious extremists from every major religion, and all cultists. It also includes people who worship guns. It includes all the eco-terrorists (the people who transitioned from tree-hugging to demolition). It includes the anti-abortionists who think it is ok to murder doctors who perform abortions. It includes the creationists. It includes the global warming hypesters. Of course, this is a partial list.
But the affliction of intellectual arrogance also includes non-ideologues. For example, atheists who know there is no God. And we should not leave out the many flavors of conspiracy theorists. At the top of that list would be those who ardently believe that the Bush family blew up the World Trade Center (and not AQ), and claim to have "proof". And let us not forget all the billionaires who think they earned their wealth, and that luck had nothing to do with it. In a similar vein, we add the CEOs of successful businesses who think they deserve most of the credit, as opposed to their employees and "lady luck".
Finally, I add myself to this compendium, for having the temerity to compile it.
If I left out any deserving groups, I was not playing favorites, and I promise to add your favorite group to my list at a future date.
I enjoy tweaking intellectual arrogance. That is because we have such tiny brains and such low intelligence, and yet man presumes to know so much. As I said in the previous post, if there is a God, He must be laughing at us.
The ideologues of every stripe are the most foolish. (You know who you are. You are the "true believers".) This is a very large set of people. Of course, it includes the stated enemy of the United States: al Qaeda (AQ). It includes all religious extremists from every major religion, and all cultists. It also includes people who worship guns. It includes all the eco-terrorists (the people who transitioned from tree-hugging to demolition). It includes the anti-abortionists who think it is ok to murder doctors who perform abortions. It includes the creationists. It includes the global warming hypesters. Of course, this is a partial list.
But the affliction of intellectual arrogance also includes non-ideologues. For example, atheists who know there is no God. And we should not leave out the many flavors of conspiracy theorists. At the top of that list would be those who ardently believe that the Bush family blew up the World Trade Center (and not AQ), and claim to have "proof". And let us not forget all the billionaires who think they earned their wealth, and that luck had nothing to do with it. In a similar vein, we add the CEOs of successful businesses who think they deserve most of the credit, as opposed to their employees and "lady luck".
Finally, I add myself to this compendium, for having the temerity to compile it.
If I left out any deserving groups, I was not playing favorites, and I promise to add your favorite group to my list at a future date.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Ron Paul
I thought about supporting Ron Paul for President, because I agree with him on Iraq and Afghanistan, and because presidents have much more leeway in foreign policy than they do in domestic affairs. But I do not agree with him in how we should deal with al Qaeda (AQ).
He only wants to use letters of marque and reprisal to capture and kill the enemy. While these Constitutional instruments should be used, we need to do a lot more in this "war on terror". (The latter expression may not be the best one, in light of Michael Scheuer's ideas expressed in "Imperial Hubris", but I will continue to use it until I finish his book and come up with something better, perhaps along the lines of "war on AQ insurgents" or something less cumbersome.) I have already said what I would do (see below).
Still, what he says about Iraq and Afghanistan, and about what led to 9/11, I could not agree with more. He stands heads and shoulders above all the presidential candidates of both major parties on these critical issues. I wish him well, and thank him for his many services to our nation.
He only wants to use letters of marque and reprisal to capture and kill the enemy. While these Constitutional instruments should be used, we need to do a lot more in this "war on terror". (The latter expression may not be the best one, in light of Michael Scheuer's ideas expressed in "Imperial Hubris", but I will continue to use it until I finish his book and come up with something better, perhaps along the lines of "war on AQ insurgents" or something less cumbersome.) I have already said what I would do (see below).
Still, what he says about Iraq and Afghanistan, and about what led to 9/11, I could not agree with more. He stands heads and shoulders above all the presidential candidates of both major parties on these critical issues. I wish him well, and thank him for his many services to our nation.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Farm Bill
The farm bill working its way through Congress is a good example of wasteful spending. According to Op-Ed Contributor: Weed It and Reap by Michael Pollan in today's NY Times, it will cost the taxpayers $288 billion (not million).
I have a better idea. Take a small portion of that pile of money, and spend whatever it takes to develop viable nuclear fusion power and build a hundred such plants around the country. Then, along with switching over to electric vehicles and electric heat in homes and offices, we can stop importing oil, and, in fact, start exporting oil. I think this would cause a huge economic crash in the Middle East, and cut much of the funding of al Qaeda.
Now, that would be money well spent.
I have a better idea. Take a small portion of that pile of money, and spend whatever it takes to develop viable nuclear fusion power and build a hundred such plants around the country. Then, along with switching over to electric vehicles and electric heat in homes and offices, we can stop importing oil, and, in fact, start exporting oil. I think this would cause a huge economic crash in the Middle East, and cut much of the funding of al Qaeda.
Now, that would be money well spent.
Pakistan
"The United States has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in aid, mostly to the military, since 2001" according to today's NY Times.
This is a perfect example of why we should not give foreign aid. Country X could be our friend today, and tomorrow our enemy.
If Pakistan descends into chaos, and as a result al Qaeda gets one or more nukes from the Pakistani arsenal, that would be very bad news. So, what did our $10 billion in aid to Pakistan do for us? Nothing!
We should never have allowed al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to escape from Afghanistan. I just wonder, when, if ever, President Bush will get off the learning curve, and start getting results.
Note to OBL: Bush won't be president forever. Your days are numbered.
This is a perfect example of why we should not give foreign aid. Country X could be our friend today, and tomorrow our enemy.
If Pakistan descends into chaos, and as a result al Qaeda gets one or more nukes from the Pakistani arsenal, that would be very bad news. So, what did our $10 billion in aid to Pakistan do for us? Nothing!
We should never have allowed al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to escape from Afghanistan. I just wonder, when, if ever, President Bush will get off the learning curve, and start getting results.
Note to OBL: Bush won't be president forever. Your days are numbered.
The Islamic World Needs New Leadership
There are supposed to be about 1.2 billion Muslims around the world. I have seen polls which suggest varying amounts of support among them for Osama bin Laden (OBL) and al Qaeda (AQ). I imagine a lot of them are "on the fence".
The question that the AQ supporters and the Muslims on the fence should ask themselves is, "Are we better off today than we were on September 10, 2001?".
While I am still reading "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer (along with several other books), I must admit that I agree with almost everything he has written. However, I think he goes a bit overboard in "understanding" OBL and AQ. Of course, we need to understand our enemy. But I come from the school of thought which says you kill him first, then later, at your leisure, try to understand what motivated the guy.
Nevertheless, I have to think that OBL must be second-guessing himself by now. Does he really think there is any way for him to win this war? Are Muslims better off today? I don't think so. There are a lot more people (several billions) who are not Muslim, and many of us now have a very low opinion of Islam, post 9/11.
(As an agnostic, I think all the major religions are nonsense, but they do vary in how much hatred they spawn today, and no religion has "clean hands". (The Inquisition was not very nice.)
The world of humans is very tribal and violent. One would hope that along with all the nonsense about paradise, "God" (definitions vary, as well as whose side "He" is on), angels and devils, at least religion would bring some peace to man's bloody history, but then one would be mistaken.
Sure, there are peaceful Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims. But not nearly enough.)
The only way to turn this around, before it gets any worse for Muslims, is for the "Islamic nation" to replace OBL as its leader. Otherwise, OBL may get his hands on a WMD and kill a great number of Americans. That would lead to a "world war" of America against the "Islamic nation", and that would look a lot different than the so-called wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which really aren't wars, but stupid "nation-building").
It is not my job, or America's, to tell Muslims who to "select" as the next leader. (In fact, "selection" is not the right term, but the idea is, Muslims need a new leader, and it is up to Muslims to find him or her.) OBL talks about paradise and dignity, but delivers blood. He gets fame, but Muslims get pain.
As for Israel, Muslims need to accept it. Israel is also not going away. Instead of supporting OBL and AQ, Muslims should support real anti-poverty programs and education, and allow Palestinians to live anywhere in the "Islamic nation", not segregated into ghetto-like refugee camps.
The world is just a tiny spec of dust in a vast universe. There are something like (10 to the power 22) stars just like our sun. Does anyone really think they know "God"? What is the probability that "God" talks to mere Earthly humans, versus the probability that some mentally ill people are merely experiencing auditory hallucinations? We can only guess at such questions; not one of us actually "knows" the whole truth.
When the "Islamic nation" matures, it will discover a small truth that some of us are already privy to: we humans start out all the same, and none of us is special: we are equally all just insignificant specks of dust in a vast, incomprehensible universe, and that is why we invent religions.
But back to the world as it is. Messy. Painful. Full of strife. Tribal. Angry. The so-called Islamic Nation can never defeat the United States of America. The sooner it realizes this, the sooner it will choose a new leader. Until then, there will be just more pain and humiliation.
The question that the AQ supporters and the Muslims on the fence should ask themselves is, "Are we better off today than we were on September 10, 2001?".
While I am still reading "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer (along with several other books), I must admit that I agree with almost everything he has written. However, I think he goes a bit overboard in "understanding" OBL and AQ. Of course, we need to understand our enemy. But I come from the school of thought which says you kill him first, then later, at your leisure, try to understand what motivated the guy.
Nevertheless, I have to think that OBL must be second-guessing himself by now. Does he really think there is any way for him to win this war? Are Muslims better off today? I don't think so. There are a lot more people (several billions) who are not Muslim, and many of us now have a very low opinion of Islam, post 9/11.
(As an agnostic, I think all the major religions are nonsense, but they do vary in how much hatred they spawn today, and no religion has "clean hands". (The Inquisition was not very nice.)
The world of humans is very tribal and violent. One would hope that along with all the nonsense about paradise, "God" (definitions vary, as well as whose side "He" is on), angels and devils, at least religion would bring some peace to man's bloody history, but then one would be mistaken.
Sure, there are peaceful Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims. But not nearly enough.)
The only way to turn this around, before it gets any worse for Muslims, is for the "Islamic nation" to replace OBL as its leader. Otherwise, OBL may get his hands on a WMD and kill a great number of Americans. That would lead to a "world war" of America against the "Islamic nation", and that would look a lot different than the so-called wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which really aren't wars, but stupid "nation-building").
It is not my job, or America's, to tell Muslims who to "select" as the next leader. (In fact, "selection" is not the right term, but the idea is, Muslims need a new leader, and it is up to Muslims to find him or her.) OBL talks about paradise and dignity, but delivers blood. He gets fame, but Muslims get pain.
As for Israel, Muslims need to accept it. Israel is also not going away. Instead of supporting OBL and AQ, Muslims should support real anti-poverty programs and education, and allow Palestinians to live anywhere in the "Islamic nation", not segregated into ghetto-like refugee camps.
The world is just a tiny spec of dust in a vast universe. There are something like (10 to the power 22) stars just like our sun. Does anyone really think they know "God"? What is the probability that "God" talks to mere Earthly humans, versus the probability that some mentally ill people are merely experiencing auditory hallucinations? We can only guess at such questions; not one of us actually "knows" the whole truth.
When the "Islamic nation" matures, it will discover a small truth that some of us are already privy to: we humans start out all the same, and none of us is special: we are equally all just insignificant specks of dust in a vast, incomprehensible universe, and that is why we invent religions.
But back to the world as it is. Messy. Painful. Full of strife. Tribal. Angry. The so-called Islamic Nation can never defeat the United States of America. The sooner it realizes this, the sooner it will choose a new leader. Until then, there will be just more pain and humiliation.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
War on Terror
It would appear that the Bush Administration does not realize that Osama bin Laden (OBL) and al Qaeda (AQ) are happy with the present course of events. We fell for OBL's trap when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. It has already cost us about a trillion dollars (considering future liabilities such as cost of extracting our troops and future health care for disabled veterans). In fact, the Congressional Budget Office reported last month "that the cost of a long-term United States troop presence in Iraq, similar to the U.S. commitment in South Korea, could reach $2 trillion or more in 2008 dollars". (Source: "CBO projects long-term troop presence in Iraq could be costly" by Peter Cohn in CongressDaily dated September 20, 2007.)
There are less expensive ways to defeat OBL and AQ. In a past posting ("How To Defeat Al Qaeda"), I explained how we could win the war using soft power. Today, I will explain how we could win the war using hard power.
Let us suppose that we withdrew our military forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, save for a few military bases. We would defend these bases using any and all military options at hand: mine fields, advanced artillery, air power.
Further suppose we brought home all troops from South Korea. This is important, since it is the aim of AQ to defeat us first economically. (That is why they attacked the World Trade Center. They are happy we are nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan because it is such a drain on us economically. For further evidence, look at the collapse of the dollar and the tripling of oil prices since we invaded Iraq.) Bringing home the troops from Korea will save us billions of dollars.
Next, we develop military plans to wipe out any or all of about 20 different cities in nations where a majority of the populations support terrorism. By this I mean complete destruction using conventional weapons (as opposed to WMDs), as we did during World War II in Europe. These plans should be "on the shelf", ready to use at a moment's notice.
The next step would be for the American President to give a televised speech during which he would announce our intention to escalate the war on terror, and demand the unconditional surrender of OBL and all the leaders of AQ. He would give them 24 hours to do this. If this demand is not met, the US would select one city and then proceed to flatten it. Then, after a suitable interval, the American president would make another speech and promise the same result, but indicate that the next attack would be on two cities, then three cities, and so on.
I anticipate two strong and reasonable objections to this policy:
1. It is too harsh.
2. How would this process end if OBL were among the dead?
As to the first, it is harsh, but we are at war. There is no reason to think that AQ would not use a WMD in Manhattan as soon as it gets its murderous hands on such a weapon, and that is only a matter of time. AQ signed the death warrants of its own people the day OBL planned the 9/11 attacks, and current polling clearly demonstrates that OBL is a hero to people everywhere, and they support AQ in their hearts, if not directly. Besides, we should look forward to the day when America is once again at peace with these nations, just as we are now at peace with Germany and Japan, our enemies during WWII. But that day will not come soon if we "stay the course" and bleed to death in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor would it come soon were we to surrender to AQ. Therefore, we have no choice but to increase the level of pain until AQ's supporters finally decide that this is not a war that they can win.
As for the second objection, since AQ is a worldwide organization, it would be impossible for the US to kill the entire leadership in the manner proposed here. Therefore, some AQ leaders would survive several American strikes, and would tell us where OBL was hiding when we killed him. But in all likelihood, OBL himself would survive all such strikes, and surrender himself.
I realize that this is not a politically correct solution to our current war on terror. In fact, I prefer the solution I posted in "How To Defeat Al Qaeda". But I think we are running out of time, especially considering AQ's announced intentions and the unstable situation in nuclear Pakistan.
It is also true that America is partly to blame for the mess we are in. I have long and frequently argued that we should never have fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. We should have "minded our own business" when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
But we cannot turn back the hands of time, and we do not live in an ideal world. We have to deal with the world as it is today, not as it might have been.
So far, we have tried to avoid collateral damage. We have used "smart bombs". We have allowed people around the world to finance terrorism without paying a price. We have allowed a hateful ideology to spread, and now it threatens our very existence. So, it is now a time for real war. On our terms, not on the enemy's terms. A war we will win. But first, we need to take off the gloves. Innocent people do die in wars. The sooner we realize this, the sooner even more innocent people will survive to live another day.
There are less expensive ways to defeat OBL and AQ. In a past posting ("How To Defeat Al Qaeda"), I explained how we could win the war using soft power. Today, I will explain how we could win the war using hard power.
Let us suppose that we withdrew our military forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, save for a few military bases. We would defend these bases using any and all military options at hand: mine fields, advanced artillery, air power.
Further suppose we brought home all troops from South Korea. This is important, since it is the aim of AQ to defeat us first economically. (That is why they attacked the World Trade Center. They are happy we are nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan because it is such a drain on us economically. For further evidence, look at the collapse of the dollar and the tripling of oil prices since we invaded Iraq.) Bringing home the troops from Korea will save us billions of dollars.
Next, we develop military plans to wipe out any or all of about 20 different cities in nations where a majority of the populations support terrorism. By this I mean complete destruction using conventional weapons (as opposed to WMDs), as we did during World War II in Europe. These plans should be "on the shelf", ready to use at a moment's notice.
The next step would be for the American President to give a televised speech during which he would announce our intention to escalate the war on terror, and demand the unconditional surrender of OBL and all the leaders of AQ. He would give them 24 hours to do this. If this demand is not met, the US would select one city and then proceed to flatten it. Then, after a suitable interval, the American president would make another speech and promise the same result, but indicate that the next attack would be on two cities, then three cities, and so on.
I anticipate two strong and reasonable objections to this policy:
1. It is too harsh.
2. How would this process end if OBL were among the dead?
As to the first, it is harsh, but we are at war. There is no reason to think that AQ would not use a WMD in Manhattan as soon as it gets its murderous hands on such a weapon, and that is only a matter of time. AQ signed the death warrants of its own people the day OBL planned the 9/11 attacks, and current polling clearly demonstrates that OBL is a hero to people everywhere, and they support AQ in their hearts, if not directly. Besides, we should look forward to the day when America is once again at peace with these nations, just as we are now at peace with Germany and Japan, our enemies during WWII. But that day will not come soon if we "stay the course" and bleed to death in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor would it come soon were we to surrender to AQ. Therefore, we have no choice but to increase the level of pain until AQ's supporters finally decide that this is not a war that they can win.
As for the second objection, since AQ is a worldwide organization, it would be impossible for the US to kill the entire leadership in the manner proposed here. Therefore, some AQ leaders would survive several American strikes, and would tell us where OBL was hiding when we killed him. But in all likelihood, OBL himself would survive all such strikes, and surrender himself.
I realize that this is not a politically correct solution to our current war on terror. In fact, I prefer the solution I posted in "How To Defeat Al Qaeda". But I think we are running out of time, especially considering AQ's announced intentions and the unstable situation in nuclear Pakistan.
It is also true that America is partly to blame for the mess we are in. I have long and frequently argued that we should never have fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. We should have "minded our own business" when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
But we cannot turn back the hands of time, and we do not live in an ideal world. We have to deal with the world as it is today, not as it might have been.
So far, we have tried to avoid collateral damage. We have used "smart bombs". We have allowed people around the world to finance terrorism without paying a price. We have allowed a hateful ideology to spread, and now it threatens our very existence. So, it is now a time for real war. On our terms, not on the enemy's terms. A war we will win. But first, we need to take off the gloves. Innocent people do die in wars. The sooner we realize this, the sooner even more innocent people will survive to live another day.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Should We Fear Al Qaeda?
Re Op-Ed Columnist: Fearing Fear Itself by Paul Krugman in today's NY Times:
I mostly agree with Mr. Krugman on his assessment of the leading Republican candidates. But where I disagree with him is in his assessment of Al Qaeda.
The consensus in the American Intelligence Community is that Al Qaeda (AQ) intends to detonate a WMD somewhere in the United States (probably Manhattan or the District of Columbia), just as soon as it is capable of carrying out such an attack.
I agree with Michael Scheuer (author of "Imperial Hubris") that about 90% of AQ are insurgents, and only about 10% are the terrorists who would execute such an attack on us.
Nevertheless, even if the probability were "low", the fact that AQ is determined to use WMDs against the US is something to worry about, especially considering the precarious state of nuclear-armed Pakistan.
It is easy to imagine one or more nukes falling into the hands of Osama bin Laden (OBL). After all, it is very likely that Islamist elements within the government or military or intelligence services of Pakistan are AQ sympathizers who are involved in hiding and/or protecting OBL inside Pakistan itself. Why else would OBL still be on the loose 6 long years after 9/11?
Therefore, with all due respect to Krugman, he is wrong about the threat of terror. But the GOP candidates are wrong about how we should deal with it.
I mostly agree with Mr. Krugman on his assessment of the leading Republican candidates. But where I disagree with him is in his assessment of Al Qaeda.
The consensus in the American Intelligence Community is that Al Qaeda (AQ) intends to detonate a WMD somewhere in the United States (probably Manhattan or the District of Columbia), just as soon as it is capable of carrying out such an attack.
I agree with Michael Scheuer (author of "Imperial Hubris") that about 90% of AQ are insurgents, and only about 10% are the terrorists who would execute such an attack on us.
Nevertheless, even if the probability were "low", the fact that AQ is determined to use WMDs against the US is something to worry about, especially considering the precarious state of nuclear-armed Pakistan.
It is easy to imagine one or more nukes falling into the hands of Osama bin Laden (OBL). After all, it is very likely that Islamist elements within the government or military or intelligence services of Pakistan are AQ sympathizers who are involved in hiding and/or protecting OBL inside Pakistan itself. Why else would OBL still be on the loose 6 long years after 9/11?
Therefore, with all due respect to Krugman, he is wrong about the threat of terror. But the GOP candidates are wrong about how we should deal with it.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
No More Bushes Or Clintons - Right Now!
After the carnage brought on America by two Bushes and one Clinton, we can only hope that Hillary Clinton's luck runs out and somehow she either loses the Democratic nomination or drops out of the race.
I wish we could turn back the clock to 1988, but that is pure fantasy.
My fear is that Hillary becomes President, with Bill Clinton advising her on foreign policy. That could only lead us into a prolonged "War on Terror", since she would not have the balls to pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and like her husband, would be afraid to kill Osama bin Laden even if he were in our sights, since she and Bill would greatly fear collateral damage.
I firmly believe that the Bushes and Clintons have already damaged America enough. Hillary should not be elected President on that basis alone.
If I may indulge in another fantasy, I would like to see Dick Cheney resign and be replaced by any intelligent, non-ideological adult American. Once that switch is secure, George W. Bush would do the smartest, most patriotic thing of his life, and also resign.
When a corporate CEO screws up big-time, he is forced to resign (even though, sadly, he usually gets a gigantic severance package). Since Bush is our first MBA President, and likes to think of himself as a businessman (his fantasy) he ought to do the only honorable thing after so many painful years of incomprehensible incompetence: resign.
I have written many posts (and will continue to write more in the same vein) criticizing the worst president in the history of the United States, so there is no reason for me to list here all of Bush's mistakes. However, I am compelled to reiterate one mistake which by itself is sufficient to call for his resignation: his failure to kill or capture Osama bin Laden (OBL).
Not even Nazi Germany or its ally, militaristic Japan, was able to attack the mainland of the US, never mind get away with it. That OBL is still breathing is a grievous insult to our forefathers and to every man or woman who ever fought for our great nation.
The blood of every American who ever died or was wounded in any battle pre-9/11 or on 9/11 demands that we defeat Al Qaeda and get OBL. Bush failed at this, and failed miserably. He should resign ASAP.
I wish we could turn back the clock to 1988, but that is pure fantasy.
My fear is that Hillary becomes President, with Bill Clinton advising her on foreign policy. That could only lead us into a prolonged "War on Terror", since she would not have the balls to pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and like her husband, would be afraid to kill Osama bin Laden even if he were in our sights, since she and Bill would greatly fear collateral damage.
I firmly believe that the Bushes and Clintons have already damaged America enough. Hillary should not be elected President on that basis alone.
If I may indulge in another fantasy, I would like to see Dick Cheney resign and be replaced by any intelligent, non-ideological adult American. Once that switch is secure, George W. Bush would do the smartest, most patriotic thing of his life, and also resign.
When a corporate CEO screws up big-time, he is forced to resign (even though, sadly, he usually gets a gigantic severance package). Since Bush is our first MBA President, and likes to think of himself as a businessman (his fantasy) he ought to do the only honorable thing after so many painful years of incomprehensible incompetence: resign.
I have written many posts (and will continue to write more in the same vein) criticizing the worst president in the history of the United States, so there is no reason for me to list here all of Bush's mistakes. However, I am compelled to reiterate one mistake which by itself is sufficient to call for his resignation: his failure to kill or capture Osama bin Laden (OBL).
Not even Nazi Germany or its ally, militaristic Japan, was able to attack the mainland of the US, never mind get away with it. That OBL is still breathing is a grievous insult to our forefathers and to every man or woman who ever fought for our great nation.
The blood of every American who ever died or was wounded in any battle pre-9/11 or on 9/11 demands that we defeat Al Qaeda and get OBL. Bush failed at this, and failed miserably. He should resign ASAP.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Hubris, Iraq and Afghanistan
When stuck in a hole, you should stop digging. First, do no harm.
I know there is an adage for every point of view, but these two keep coming to mind in the debate about the Iraq Wars and the War on Terror.
But first, a word about hubris. We all have it. But it is relative, that is, a matter of degree. Also, if a president does something catastrophically stupid because of his hubris, then this must be pointed out. Anything we ordinary citizens can say that might prevent future catastrophic mistakes by our leaders is a good thing.
It was hubris which led President George H. W. Bush to attack the Muslim country Iraq in 1991. Who elected him to be Policeman of the World? Answer: no one. We don't have "World Government", and that is good. Maybe it would be nice in a thousand years, but not in the foreseeable future. Even then, I bet the rest of the world would have to pay the Policeman big bucks to take on this thankless role.
But Pappa Bush suffered immensely from hubris. He just couldn't mind his own business. He forgot that when he fought bravely in WW2, it was a declared war against enemies which had attacked us. Iraq never attacked us. And since we are and were much more powerful than Iraq, then if they were crazy enough to attack us, they would have been quickly and utterly destroyed, with lots of collateral damage (as often happened in WW2).
But hubris eats at you. Why just be President when you can be a War President? We outlasted the USSR, so why not take on Iraq and show the world who is boss?
One of my favorite authors, Nassim Taleb, writes about risk. One of the really big risks is war, since you never know how it will turn out.
So, lets see what happened after Pappa Bush fed his hubris. We ended up in a second war with Iraq, the one in the 1990s when we kept them in a box. We also had an organization most Americans never heard of, Al Qaeda, and its leader, Osama bin Laden, declare war on us. Oops! Then, AQ and OBL carried out a series of attacks against us (the first WTC bombing, the embassy attacks in Africa, the barracks attack in Saudi Arabia, the attack on the USS Cole, and finally 9/11. Then we started nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I would have been quite happy if Pappa Bush had simply scolded Saddam Hussein for being a bad boy. That would not have cost us much. Instead, we have suffered thousands of casualties and spent over a trillion dollars fighting stupid wars and rebuilding after 9/11. If only Pappa Bush had remembered "first, do no harm". (My corollary for what to do after another nation or group attacks the US is: first, destroy them totally.)
Unfortunately, "W" made things worse because he forgot "When stuck in a hole, you should stop digging". He made a mistake when he invaded Iraq for developing WMDs. (Oops!) He compounded that mistake (dug deeper) when he came up with false reason after false reason for the invasion. Finally, he dug really deep when he decided to occupy and nation-build Iraq.
Now, you can't blame "W" for not knowing the inscrutable mind of a Muslim nation. After all, as he freely admits, he was a C student. But the sad truth is that the reaction of the Iraqis to our occupation has little to do with religion. It is more basic: nationalism and human nature. No one wants another country to invade your homeland and then install their kind of government. I know I would not like it if (say) Advanced Martians invaded the US and tried to install Martian-style government. For this mistake, "W" does deserve blame. All of it. Don't blame the neo-cons, don't blame the military. It is all on the shoulders of the worst president in American history.
By the way, I really don't care if Saddam and OBL had contact, whether directly or via subordinates. OBL and SH had contacts with a lot of bad actors. We need to be a wee bit more discriminating before we go to war. Otherwise, we would soon be at war with every other nation!
We need to get out of Iraq ASAP. No one knows if there will then be a bloodbath, since no one has a crystal ball. But if a regional war erupted between the Sunni nations (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.) and the Shiite nations (Iran and most of Iraq), that is not our business. We are not the Policeman of the world. We had nothing to do with the centuries-long (and crazy) feud between these two groups.
We should also stop nation-building in Afghanistan. They, too, didn't ask for our help. They mostly hate us. But we should carpet-bomb those parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan where OBL might be hiding, and not worry about collateral damage. You can't win a war if you worry about collateral damage. If we had perfect weapons, there wouldn't be any collateral damage, but we don't have perfect weapons, and we should minimize American casualties and maximize enemy pain.
By the way, it really angered me that Kuwaitis were cheering on 9/11. Most of the South Koreans do not like us, even though we paid dearly in blood and treasure in the Korean War. There is no point in sacrificing American lives for the sake of other countries. Alliances are too temporal. (I would make a few exceptions: Great Britain and Canada are examples.) Vietnam was a complete waste.
We should never fight wars for oil. The act of war itself wastes an incredible amount of oil.
But now we are in a War on Terror (a war with Al Qaeda). We need to use our brains, and fight wisely. Use soft power. Build up our strength. Don't worry about collateral damage when going after AQ.
I know there is an adage for every point of view, but these two keep coming to mind in the debate about the Iraq Wars and the War on Terror.
But first, a word about hubris. We all have it. But it is relative, that is, a matter of degree. Also, if a president does something catastrophically stupid because of his hubris, then this must be pointed out. Anything we ordinary citizens can say that might prevent future catastrophic mistakes by our leaders is a good thing.
It was hubris which led President George H. W. Bush to attack the Muslim country Iraq in 1991. Who elected him to be Policeman of the World? Answer: no one. We don't have "World Government", and that is good. Maybe it would be nice in a thousand years, but not in the foreseeable future. Even then, I bet the rest of the world would have to pay the Policeman big bucks to take on this thankless role.
But Pappa Bush suffered immensely from hubris. He just couldn't mind his own business. He forgot that when he fought bravely in WW2, it was a declared war against enemies which had attacked us. Iraq never attacked us. And since we are and were much more powerful than Iraq, then if they were crazy enough to attack us, they would have been quickly and utterly destroyed, with lots of collateral damage (as often happened in WW2).
But hubris eats at you. Why just be President when you can be a War President? We outlasted the USSR, so why not take on Iraq and show the world who is boss?
One of my favorite authors, Nassim Taleb, writes about risk. One of the really big risks is war, since you never know how it will turn out.
So, lets see what happened after Pappa Bush fed his hubris. We ended up in a second war with Iraq, the one in the 1990s when we kept them in a box. We also had an organization most Americans never heard of, Al Qaeda, and its leader, Osama bin Laden, declare war on us. Oops! Then, AQ and OBL carried out a series of attacks against us (the first WTC bombing, the embassy attacks in Africa, the barracks attack in Saudi Arabia, the attack on the USS Cole, and finally 9/11. Then we started nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I would have been quite happy if Pappa Bush had simply scolded Saddam Hussein for being a bad boy. That would not have cost us much. Instead, we have suffered thousands of casualties and spent over a trillion dollars fighting stupid wars and rebuilding after 9/11. If only Pappa Bush had remembered "first, do no harm". (My corollary for what to do after another nation or group attacks the US is: first, destroy them totally.)
Unfortunately, "W" made things worse because he forgot "When stuck in a hole, you should stop digging". He made a mistake when he invaded Iraq for developing WMDs. (Oops!) He compounded that mistake (dug deeper) when he came up with false reason after false reason for the invasion. Finally, he dug really deep when he decided to occupy and nation-build Iraq.
Now, you can't blame "W" for not knowing the inscrutable mind of a Muslim nation. After all, as he freely admits, he was a C student. But the sad truth is that the reaction of the Iraqis to our occupation has little to do with religion. It is more basic: nationalism and human nature. No one wants another country to invade your homeland and then install their kind of government. I know I would not like it if (say) Advanced Martians invaded the US and tried to install Martian-style government. For this mistake, "W" does deserve blame. All of it. Don't blame the neo-cons, don't blame the military. It is all on the shoulders of the worst president in American history.
By the way, I really don't care if Saddam and OBL had contact, whether directly or via subordinates. OBL and SH had contacts with a lot of bad actors. We need to be a wee bit more discriminating before we go to war. Otherwise, we would soon be at war with every other nation!
We need to get out of Iraq ASAP. No one knows if there will then be a bloodbath, since no one has a crystal ball. But if a regional war erupted between the Sunni nations (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.) and the Shiite nations (Iran and most of Iraq), that is not our business. We are not the Policeman of the world. We had nothing to do with the centuries-long (and crazy) feud between these two groups.
We should also stop nation-building in Afghanistan. They, too, didn't ask for our help. They mostly hate us. But we should carpet-bomb those parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan where OBL might be hiding, and not worry about collateral damage. You can't win a war if you worry about collateral damage. If we had perfect weapons, there wouldn't be any collateral damage, but we don't have perfect weapons, and we should minimize American casualties and maximize enemy pain.
By the way, it really angered me that Kuwaitis were cheering on 9/11. Most of the South Koreans do not like us, even though we paid dearly in blood and treasure in the Korean War. There is no point in sacrificing American lives for the sake of other countries. Alliances are too temporal. (I would make a few exceptions: Great Britain and Canada are examples.) Vietnam was a complete waste.
We should never fight wars for oil. The act of war itself wastes an incredible amount of oil.
But now we are in a War on Terror (a war with Al Qaeda). We need to use our brains, and fight wisely. Use soft power. Build up our strength. Don't worry about collateral damage when going after AQ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)