Re: Yes, Virginia, There Is A Foreign Policy Debate Friday
On Sep 25, 4:02 am, Jesse wrote:
> chatnoir wrote:
> >http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/yes-virginia-there-is-foreign-...
>
> Would it be too much of a request to get you to throw in something on
> topic, say, every other 10th post ?
On topic?? You first! But from the article!:
excerpts:
First we have the Marriott bombing in Islamabad, Pakistan, the
second big suicide attack in the Muslim world in the space of the week
(along with the bombing of the US embassy in Sanaa, Yemen). Given that
the Marriott is typically home to international businessmen and
Western dignitaries, so those similarities exist as well. This was a
signal from the Taliban in response to the recent spate of US forays
into the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) region. Given that
the Pakistani Prime Minister was due at the Marriott, it could have
been worse.
Clearly there's a real problem with Pakistan. At least 300 have died
in suicide attacks just this year. We've launched something
approaching a shadow war in the FATA region, without any partnership
and in fact increasing resistance from elements in the Pakistani
government and the military, which is actively repelling raids. It
threatens a split between the Army and the leadership of Prime
Minister Zardari, and that has potentially disastrous results. In
short, the country is on the brink.
More than any other terrorist attack in this volatile country, the
devastating truck bombing of the Marriott Hotel over the weekend has
presented government and military leaders here with a stark choice: Go
all out against extremists or risk the nation's collapse into chaos.
That is the growing consensus among many Pakistani analysts and
commentators, who fear that without rapid, determined and ironfisted
action by officials and security forces, this nuclear-armed land is in
danger of becoming a failed state, with Islamic radicals in control.
Brandon Friedman has more on this, and he believes that John McCain
will end up altering his position on Pakistan with one more broadly in
line with Barack Obama. But the question is how to best articulate
that policy - maintaining a stance that respects Pakistan's national
sovereignty, but one which understands that a safe harbor for those
who wish to do Americans harm is not advisable. This is best
accomplished by the locals, not yet another occupying force. But the
locals may have competing interests. It's a complex, dangerous
situation that represents the most dangerous trouble spot on the
globe, and it demands attention.
Across the border, Afghanistan is falling apart because the central
government is weak and the Taliban has figured out how to fill in the
cracks.
The new Taliban movement has created a parallel government structure
that includes defense and finance councils and appoints judges and
officials in some areas. It offers cash to recruits and presents
letters of introduction to local leaders. It operates Web sites and a
24-hour propaganda apparatus that spins every military incident faster
than Afghan and Western officials can manage.
"This is not the Taliban of Emirate times. It is a new, updated
generation," said Waheed Mojda, a former foreign ministry aide under
the Taliban Islamic Emirate, which ruled most of the country from 1996
to 2001. "They are more educated, and they don't punish people for
having CDs or cassettes," he said. "The old Taliban wanted to bring
sharia, security and unity to Afghanistan. The new Taliban has much
broader goals -- to drive foreign forces out of the country and the
Muslim world."
That's just distressing. From a humanitarian standpoint alone we have
a responsibility to keep the Taliban on the run. But if they've become
the de facto government in much of the country, military force against
them will take on the look of an invasion, and it will have trouble
succeeding. In fact, the US considers that violence will worsen in the
country over the next year, due to a winter offensive, and the troops
simply aren't going to be available to stop that. In fact, the latest
report on Afghanistan is so bad that the Administration won't release
it:
U.S. intelligence analysts are putting the final touches on a secret
National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Afghanistan that reportedly
describes the situation as grim, but there are no plans to
declassify any of it before the election, according to one US
official familiar with the process. [
]
According to people who have been briefed, the NIE will paint a grim
picture of the situation in Afghanistan, seven years after the US
invaded in an effort to dismantle the al Qaeda network and its Taliban
protectors.
There's talk of a joint security force between the Afghans, the US and
the Pakistanis to police the border, but it's unclear why the
Pakistanis, who are resisting foreign actions in their territory,
would agree to that. ...
Africa is at a crossroads. Much of East Africa is susceptible to
extremism and has been ignored by the Bush Administration for years.
Somalia, where a proxy force from Ethiopia raided a couple years ago
and took down the Islamic Courts Union, is becoming increasingly
unstable as the insurgents regroup, and if a harbor is established it
could be another opportunity for attacks to be launched. The southern
region, where a modicum of stability appeared to exist, has been
rocked by the resignation of Thabo Mbeki in South Africa amid
allegations of corruption, as well as eleven members of the cabinet
(UPDATE: That was a false alarm). Mbeki has spent lots of time and
political capital trying to put together a unity government in
troubled Zimbabwe, which is incredibly tenuous. A forgotten Africa is
both vulnerable to extremism and Chinese influence.
The headline here is that North Korea is backing away from the
nuclear deal with the United States, but the reality is more complex.
The US was dragging their feet in removing North Korea from a list of
state sponsors of terrorism, and with the instability surrounding the
possible illness of Kim Jong Il, there could also be a jockeying for
power among competing forces in Pyongyang. We have bought ourselves a
little time, but it seems like both sides are stalling. With Pyongyang
asking the IAEA to remove seals at their largest reprocessing
facility, the gains of the past couple years are almost entirely lost,
and this is a failure of the Bush Administration to live up to their
commitments. Will that get mentioned? ....
It's time to get serious. The belligerent Bush foreign policy is
making a dangerous world more dangerous. Our shrinking moral authority
and lack of cooperation with allies has enhanced this. I don't know if
we're losing the war on terrorism because I have no idea what a war on
terrorism is, but the public thinks we are. And the choice in this
Presidential election is between the same old neocon know-nothingism
or a measured approach that recognizes both the challenges we face and
the best way to combat them. That is more than important enough to
fill 90 minutes on Friday night. I just hope (against hope) that the
debate is about the real issues. ...
--------
Has nothing to do with terrorism Jesse? Maybe next time you should
actually read the article!
date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
author: chatnoir
|
