Imran Khan should have stuck to cricket. The Pakistani political party, PTI (Movement for Justice), has reportedly leaked the name of the CIA's Station Chief in Islamabad. For the interests of the Pakistani people, this was a profoundly idiotic move.
First, even before now, the Station Chief's identity was almost certainly known to the Pakistani authorities - one of the primary responsibilities of a Station Chief is to liaise with the foreign government. The PTI hasn't helped the Pakistani Government uncover a foreign spy. But via this leak (if only for a short time), the PTI will have weakened Pakistani-US intelligence cooperation. This is not a small concern. The US-Pakistani intelligence relationship is of great importance to the people of Pakistan. In specific terms, it's instrumental to Pakistan's ability to keep innocent civilians safe from violent extremists.
That incontestable reality speaks to a deeper truth.
This leak was about one thing - domestic politics. Over the last couple of years, Khan has cultivated a seriously unpleasant alliance with various Islamist extremist groups. At the same time, the PTI leader has sought to blame the United States for Pakistan's woeful security situation. This all culminated with Khan's rally last week against the CIA's drone program (an issue he has embraced as his defining populist cause). To be sure, many Pakistanis do not like the idea of a foreign power using force in their country. Nevertheless, as I've argued before, US drones help Pakistan to address critical threats that would otherwise go unchallenged.
Ultimately, Khan's actions speak to a broader problem in much of the Islamic world. Rather than facing up to major socio-political difficulties, far too many politicians choose to blame the United States for their nation's ills. It's certainly easier than confronting brutal extremist movements. In the short term, it also offers voters a rallying point to express their diverging discontent in common cause. Yet, the problem with this type of political strategy is that it renders such negative consequences - sacrificing the interests of the people at the altar of a patently false agenda. Take this example from a senior PTI politician. After calling for the CIA Station Chief's arrest, the MP also called for his ''interrogation'' in order to garner the identities of drone pilots. It's absurdity personified. Mazari knows that will never happen, she's simply stoking the fires of an easy anger.
Khan and the PTI aren't helping to build a better, independent future for Pakistan. Instead, they're simply fueling extremists who want to destroy any semblance of hope for a more just and prosperous democracy.
Concerning the challenges to international security posed by nuclear proliferation, much greater attention must be given to the relationships between different Islamic extremist organizations.
Consider Hezbollah's attitude towards Al Qa'ida. If Iran attains a nuclear weapon, Hezbollah's peripheral access presents many problems. Such a capability (whether perceived or real) would enable Hezbollah to pursue nuclear blackmail against Israel and the United States, but also against Al Qa'ida. Rooted in a history of conflict and accentuated by years of recent and brutal Shia-Sunni sectarian bloodletting in Iraq, Hezbollah despises Al Qa'ida and its allies. Where the groups do sometimes co-operate, this co-operation is vested in shared short term interests. Hezbollah ultimately opposes Al Qa'ida's objectives, because Al Qa'ida seeks to destroy Hezbollah's on-going pursuit of greater Shia theological power in political Islam (see below). For Hezbollah, weakening Al Qa'ida isn't just a defensive objective, it's a means to pursue the precedence of Shia theology at the forefront of Islamic 'traditionalist' discourse. And in obvious terms, a nuclear weapon is a powerful tool for that agenda.
Next let's consider the Al Qa'ida perspective. Yesterday's news
from Pakistan indicates that whether involving subscribers to Salafist (Al Qai'da) or
fundamentalist Deobandi (Pakistani Taliban) theology, an embedded hatred
underpins the outlook of many Sunni extremists when it comes to Shia Muslims. Anyone who doubts the strategic importance of this hatred should read Al Zarqawi's 2004/05 letters from Iraq. Should these individuals gain access to nuclear weapons, the outcome would be rather unpleasant. In such a scenario, while India, the US and Israel would certainly be in the crosshairs, major Shia Islamist groups like Hezbollah would also face a major threat. Thus is the understated point - Al Qa'ida would believe that they finally had the means to 'purify' Islam.
In essence, while nuclear proliferation in the Middle East obviously presents a profound challenge for international state security dynamics, it also portends a second, equally dangerous face. A security environment where non-state groups which idolize counter-intuitive notions of existential value, are armed with nuclear weapons and propelled by hatred, mistrust and irreconcilable ideologies. This would be a security dilemma on steroids- unrestrained, uncontrollable and a whisper away from nuclear war.
The Pakistani Railways Minister has offered $100,000 USD to anyone who murders the man responsible for producing 'The Innocence of Muslims'.
As Mr. Bilour put it, "I will pay whoever kills the makers of this video $100,000. If someone else makes other similar blasphemous material in the future, I will also pay his killers $100,000." Mr. Bilour states that he supports free speech (with one minor caveat). "I call upon these countries and say: Yes, freedom of expression is there, but you should make laws regarding people insulting our Prophet. And if you don't, then the future will be extremely dangerous."
The Pakistani Government's current position is that Mr. Bilour will be able to "stay in his post for now".
Let's be clear, this is a solicitation to murder and a threat of terrorism. Bilour's actions are inexcusable, morally foul and representative of the utter dysfunction of the Pakistani Government. Sadly, as the recent protests have indicated, Bilour is far from alone in his opinion. In states where the predominant religion is Islam, a vocal minority of citizens subscribe to the notion that while their free speech is absolute, their right to not be insulted is also absolute. For example, these individuals feel that they have the right to burn American flags (and greatly insult the American people) but not to suffer similar challenge. They are wrong and we should be unafraid to tell them so. The stakes in this protest crisis are considerable. Free speech relies upon a vigorous and open exchange of ideas. Where we restrict speech to words that do not offend, we chill all speech and drive discussion into the intellectual abyss of political correctness. America's success resides on our free speech. We must never apologize for our values. I know that President Obama has had the best intentions with his international outreach during this crisis. However, by appearing to apologize, Obama has made America appear weak. He has also unjustly qualified the moral authority of the purest American value.
In my view, Jones's argument is weak; indicative of the author's poor understanding of international affairs and his embedded anti-american sentiment. Below, I have responded to the major arguments that Jones makes.
After all, it was difficult to defend an administration packed with such repulsive characters, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, whose attitude towards the rest of the world amounted to thuggish contempt.
Cheney and Rumsfeld may be controversial characters (I often disagree with their positions), but I reject the notion that they are 'repulsive'. From their perspective, the US faced critical national security challenges that required robust policy responses. I respect that both men did what they thought was right for the United States. Jones seems to think that because Cheney and Rumsfeld disagreed with his European leftist world view, they were beyond reproach. He is wrong.
Many will shudder remembering that dark era: the naked human pyramids accompanied by grinning US service personnel in Abu Ghraib; the orange-suited prisoners in Guantanamo, kneeling in submission at the feet of US soldiers; the murderous assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah.
I take issue with everything here. In response to the despicable abuses at Abu Ghraib, the US Military rightly punished those responsible. The actions of these personnel were an aberration from the fine conduct that the US armed forces exemplify 99% of the time. It is disgusting that Jones asserts that Abu Ghraib was a deliberate action on the part of the US Government.
On Guantanamo, the photo that Jones refers to was taken in January 2002, just after the first prisoners had arrived. The photo shows nothing more than the detainees sitting in a control position. However, for those on the hard-left like Jones, the photo serves a natural metaphor for their inherent disgust towards the notion of military justice. I always find it amusing that people like Jones have no concerns about the military justice system when it is used against military personnel, but get incredibly upset when it is used against terrorists.
Fallujah - Jones's most idiotic point. Jones evidently has absolutely no understanding of military operations in urban environments. They are always bloody, always destructive and always unpleasant. However, prior to its Fallujah operation, the US Military took great effort to evacuate the city of civilians. As a further indication of the US Military's desire to prevent civilian loss of life during the operation, only 10% of requested (pre-ground force entry) air strikes were authorized. Pre-November 2004, Fallujah was the primary base of operations for Al Qa'ida in Iraq. It was the place where car bombs were constructed to be used to murder innocent Iraqis, it was the city where hostages were held, tortured and executed. It was the physical and ideational home of those who wanted to destroy Iraq. It was where men like Janabi murdered Iraqi patriots who simply wanted to bring justice to their communities. Put simply, the US had no alternative but to take Fallujah. Had we not, thousands more Iraqis would have died at the hands of the insurgents and Iraq's stability and security (already endangered) would have been placed in much greater jeopardy. (See one example of Al Qa'ida in Iraq actions).
This week, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, Ben Emmerson QC, demanded that the US allow independent investigation over its use of unmanned drones, or the UN would be forced to step in.
Good luck UN. The US is at war. We have the right to defend our citizens. I wonder if like me, Jones visualizes this when he writes that the UN will be 'forced to step in'. Note- I am simply arguing that the UN is an impotent joke that serves dictators rather than democracy. I am not endorsing feeding UN officials to sharks.
In one such attack [predator drone] in North Waziristan in 2009, several villagers died in an attempt to rescue victims of a previous strike.
It might be unpleasant, but the US must address those who threaten us. It would be militarily absurd to allow our enemies to be withdrawn from the battlefield, to then be able to plot against us once again.
According to Pakistan's US Ambassador, Sherry Rehman, the drone war "radicalises foot soldiers, tribes and entire villages in our region". After the latest strike this week, Pakistan's foreign ministry said the attacks were "a violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity and are in contravention of international law". Its Parliament has passed a resolution condemning the drone war.
I have little doubt that the drone strikes help cause the radicalization of some Pakistanis. This is regrettable. However, in my opinion the US has no choice but to utilize the drones. Extremist groups in Pakistan pose a substantial threat to the security of the United States. Pakistan may complain, but Pakistan is in bed with these terrorists. Perhaps if the Pakistani government/military got tougher on extremists, Pakistan would have a logical argument with which to persuade the US to end the drone program.
It [drone program] is armed aggression by the Obama administration, pure and simple.
BS. It is self-defense justified by moral and strategic necessity.
Two months ago, former US President Jimmy Carter described drone attacks as a "widespread abuse of human rights" which "abets our enemies and alienates our friends". He's not wrong: the Pew Research Center found just 7 per cent of Pakistanis had a positive view of Obama, the same percentage as Bush had just before he left office.
You don't fight a war based on opinion polls.
[Re-Afghanistan]US involvement in a senseless, unwinnable war in the country – ruled by a weak, corrupt government that stole the 2009 presidential election with ballot stuffing, intimidation and fraud – continues.
Under Obama, the US role in the Middle East remains as cynically wedded to strategic self-interest as ever. Despotic tyrannies like Saudi Arabia are armed to the teeth: in 2010, the US signed an arms deal with the regime worth $60bn, the biggest in US history. Obama has resumed sales of military equipment to Bahrain's dictatorship as it brutally crushes protesters struggling for democracy. Last year, Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain with tacit US support. And even when the US-backed Mubarak dictatorship was on the ropes in Egypt, Obama's administration remained a cheerleader, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arguing that the "Egyptian Government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people".
I actually broadly agree with Jones here. The US should have withdrawn support for Mubarak far earlier - he had become a despot beyond redemption. The US must also exert pressure on Saudi Arabia to improve human rights and democracy conditions. Unfortunately as I have previously argued, until we get rid of our oil addiction, America will remain on the Saudi leash. My concern with Jones is that he doesn't realize how hypocritical he is being when he criticizes US pro-democracy action in Afghanistan and Iraq, but simultaneously demands pro-democracy action everywhere else.
Coupled with the US's ongoing failure to pressure Israel into accepting a just peace with the Palestinians, no wonder there is rising global anger at Obama.
Peace will not come until the Israelis and Palestinians desire a lasting settlement. Jones plays the typical card of blaming Israel, even though the Israeli peace proposals in 2000 and 2008 - rejected by the Palestinian leadership - were bold and generous. I am hopeful that Netanyahu will be increasingly able to isolate extremists in his coalition who oppose peace. I also hope that HAMAS inability to improve the lives of Palestinians in Gaza will lead to their collapse (sadly I doubt HAMAS cares much for democratic tradition).
The US share of global economic output was nearly a quarter in 1991; today, it represents less than a fifth. The financial crash has accelerated the ongoing drain in US economic power to the East. Latin America, regarded as the US's backyard since the 1823 Monroe Doctrine claimed it for the US sphere of influence, is now dominated by governments demanding a break from the free-market Washington Consensus.
China will face major problems as it seeks to deal with a large population who lack freedom and economic mobility. With strong leadership, the US can retain its position as the world's foremost power. Jones comments on S/C America are hilarious. He neglects to mention that the major economic powerhouses of Brazil and Colombia have rejected the wacko Chavez aligned movements which are falling apart at the seams. I always find it staggering that the European left worship men like Chavez and Castro. Chavez has destroyed Venezuela's economy while supporting a band of murdering rapists in Colombia. Castro rules over a country in which only 5% of the population have cars and from which many Cubans risk crossing shark infested waters to escape the 'communist paradise'. For Jones to embrace these regimes is both morally foul and intellectually bankrupt.
the Iraq war not only undermined US military prestige and invincibility, it perversely boosted Iran's power in the Middle East.
The hard left love using this line, yet Maliki (albeit too autocratic) is by no means an Iranian stooge. The Iraqi people determine their own future now. Jones apparently mourns the 'safe hands' of Saddam Hussein.
With the last remaining superpower at its weakest since World War II, there is an unmissable opening to argue for a more equal and just world order, restricting the ability of Great Powers to throw their weight around. And a word of warning: if we don't seize this opportunity now, one superpower will simply be replaced by another – and our world will be as unequal and unjust as ever.
Since the end of the Second World War, America has preserved international security and freedom. This has come at significant expense in American treasure and at a high human cost to the American people. Without the US, the world would be at the mercy of violent extremists. The security of the seas (crucial for international trade) would be endangered and the ambitions of autocrats from Russia to China to Venezuela would be unleashed. I have no comprehension of what kind of world Jones wants. Presumably he is one of those leftists who subscribe to the incomprehensible notion that the UN can preserve international order. Just look at Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria to see the UN's 'peace' record. Perhaps Jones wants the Chinese to assume the mantle of global power? Again, that might not be so good for those in Asia or those around the world who wish to be free.
In the end, I suspect that there is a deeper motivation behind Jones's words. For Jones as for so many on the hard left, America is an obstacle to their (false) socialist utopia. They wish for a system in which power is centralised with an elite who know what is best for everyone else. Conversely, America believes in and stands for a system via which individuals hold power and enrich society, through communities built upon tangible mutual interests and ideals.
America is far from perfect, but a strong America is necessary for the security and freedom of people everywhere.
Treason requires an act of betrayal against your country. So.. the fact that a Pakistani court has found Doctor Afridi guilty of treason, indicates that the court believed that Bin Laden was due the special protection of the Pakistani state. So.. if as the court suggests, Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden, Pakistan committed an act of war against the Untied States.
The United States should do everything in our power to secure the release of this good man.
If these allegations are true, then the US should have been much more robust in our protests to the Israeli Government. Covertly associating the US with terrorists is intolerable.
The US relationship with Israel must be based on trust and honesty - arguably the two most important factors for any close friendship. False flag operations without the consent of the 'flag' nation (in this case the US) pose serious moral and political questions. Such actions unjustly associate one party as responsible for the actions of another (thus endangering the first party's interests/citizens) and undercut the notion of an intelligence relationship that is based on mutual respect. Israel acted in a similar (albeit less serious) manner in 2010 vis-a-vis the UK. This suggests a worrying trend.
Faced with a variable array of state/non-state enemies, Israel has the right to pursue independent intelligence operations. However, for the sake of both Israel and her allies, these actions must not come at the expense of long-term friendships.
The news that the ISI provided material support for the Haqqani network's attack on Kabul, is no shocker. The ISI supports anyone who serves their own short term (delusional) view of self-interest. The US Govt should launch a concerted effort to exert pressure on Pakistan's govt to end their support for terrorists.
Friday, May 27, 2011
1) Hillary Clinton was right to visit Pakistan. Whatever the problems in the US relationship with Pakistan, the US needs Pakistani support for a stable Afghanistan. While the ISI will continue to try and protect their own interests (marginalizing the influence of the US/getting US aid/hostile policy towards India), there are others in the Pakistani govt/military that have a more balanced outlook. It is true that they might not win out over anti-US elements, but it is also true that without US support the chances of their political defeat are substantially higher.
2) Now that Mladic has been captured we will have another opportunity to view the dysfunction of the Hague 'justice' system. His incarceration will be characterized by comparative luxury, his trial by extreme length and his punishment if (convicted) by terrible insufficiency.
3) The Senate was right to re-authorize the Patriot Act sunset provisions. I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent abuse (important oversight is critical though). The capabilities that these provisions provide are also critical to national security. European investigative tools are far more intrusive and without similar safeguards. For example, the UK domestic Security Service - MI5, only requires the signature of the Home Secretary to authorize wiretaps. Political authority not judicial.
5) Instead of using Obama's speech as a reach out to Arab and Israeli moderates, we have allowed Hizballah to spin our reaction in their favor. Nasarallah is now openly supporting Assad as part of the righteous bulwark against the Israeli-US conspiracy. The hypocrisy of Hizballah's Assad support is stunning (supporting a dictator while painting themselves as revolutionary emancipators) but its acceptance by Arab moderates is only possible through our own stupidity in playing into their traditional talking points. We should be embarrassed. Congress should read some books on the Middle East rather than reading polling data.
6) FIFA is in a state of meltdown. Sepp Blatter is an ass hole but it appears he may also be corrupt. Sadly their appears to be no one respectable available to replace him.
7) The Red Sox are on fire. A nice change from the early season.
This is my blog. Each day I will put down my thoughts concerning political issues (and sports) that are in (and sometimes are not in) the news. I am a Republican but I have an open mind.
Tom Rogan Thinks..
1) The ongoing Pakistan-US situation vis-a-vis Bin Laden is ridiculous. The No. 1 Pakistani Intelligence Service - ISI, is riddled with Taliban sympathizers and more than likely helped protect Bin Laden from our intelligence efforts. For the ISI, India is the key. They see the Taliban and other regional idiots like Lashkar e Taiba as a counter-weight against Indian power and influence. The US is just a source of money.
3) Boehner's focus on entitlement reform is admirable. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54628.html While Republicans should be open to more substantial cuts to defense spending (there is no question that this can be done without harming our core capabilities), the fact that Democrats don't seem interested in reforming Medicare (the core driver for future debt growth) is a serious problem for their intellectual credibility. If we want to avoid a collapse in the bond markets and an ensuing economic disaster, the debt limit must be raised and substantial long term spending cuts/reforms enacted. I will publish more on my deficit/debt control ideas tomorrow.
5) On the Ancelotti debate at Chelsea FC http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13343882.stm - I think he should be allowed to stay. Ancelotti has an impressive managerial record and has presided over a remarkable turnaround in Chelsea's recent fortunes (Man Utd game aside). Abramovich keeps ripping the gears and then gets confused when the team doesn't work properly? Chelsea need consistency and another key play maker who can support their offensive efforts.
