Showing posts with label diplomacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diplomacy. Show all posts

Friday, August 9, 2013

Change, Pakistan, and Captain America: My Take

Steve Rogers is a comic book character brought to life by Marvel Entertainment and Paramount Pictures. In the last scenes of "Captain America: The First Avenger" he runs from a reasonable facsimile of a 1940s hospital room into New York City's 21st century Times Square.

I think Chris Evans does a good job of mimicking the response of a stressed-out WWII soldier fast-forwarding through about 70 years in maybe seven minutes: tops.

Bear with me. This post belongs in this blog.

I remember most of the decades between WWII and today. This is not the world I grew up in. Technology, customs, and social structures have been changing: a lot. I still haven't quite gotten used to the idea of addressing other adults by their first names.

But 'no complaints.' Change happens.

Abram to Anheuser-Busch in One Generation

Growing up in America, I've been spared some culture shock. My ancestral cultures started changing a thousand years ago, picked up the pace five centuries back, and started the industrial revolution.

I remember the first artificial satellite, and the days when computers used vacuum tubes. Change 'normal' for me.

I have a little sympathy for folks who grew up with hand-woven tents and camels: and whose kids probably know about designer jeans and know the difference between iPhone and Android.

They're experiencing more change than I have: and grew up expecting life to go on as it had since before Abram moved out of Ur. Small wonder that some aren't comfortable with today's world.

That's not an excuse for killing neighbors, though.

Killing Pakistanis


(Naseer Ahmed, via Reuters, used w/o permission)

This man was arriving at a hospital in Quetta, Pakistan. He is one of 27 injured outside a mosque today. Nine folks are dead, but they may not have been the attack's target.

Provincial government minister Ali Mohammad Jattack was driving by the mosque when a few folks started shooting - apparently in the general direction of his car. Other folks who had been worshiping at the mosque may have just been at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Reuters says that Pakistanis have been killing each other more often than usual recently, following a new Prime Minister's election. The implication is that there's a cause-effect relationship, which may be true.

The attacks aren't random. Shi'ite Muslims, a minority in Pakistan, get injured or killed by Sunni Muslims who apparently don't approve of Shi'ites. It's pretty obvious that not all Sunni Muslims in Pakistan feel this way, or there wouldn't even be a Shi'ite minority.

Killing Americans

Meanwhile, the American State Department closed offices in Pakistan, and says that Americans who don't need to be in Pakistan shouldn't go there.

I believe news reports that say that the State Department's actions about Pakistan aren't related to the other embassy closings, a few days ago. More accurately, I accept the idea that the same groups or individuals aren't trying to kill Americans in all these places.

In another way, what's going on in Pakistan and elsewhere around the world is part of something the American government stopped calling the war on terror when the current administration moved in.

Whatever we call it, I'm quite certain that those of us who don't mind living in the 21st century still have to be careful.

Making Changes

Folks who quite sincerely hate what's been happening during the last few centuries will probably continue to kill their neighbors, or die trying. I do not think that the most rigidly dedicated supporters of an ancient way of life will change their minds. But their followers, and their children, are another matter.

Quite a few folks in Iraq seemed convinced that foreigners were evil,. or at least decided that being alive was better than disagreeing with an Al Qaeda boss. Then a UN-backed coalition upset the status quo.

Once the 'evil' foreigners killed enforcers who'd been chopping off heads, and started repairing neglected roads and sewage plants: many Iraqis decided that being free was a good idea.

That must have been terribly frustrating for Iraqis who enjoyed the privilege of killing 'bad' neighbors: but no society is perfect for everybody.

Looking Ahead

Naming a similar phenomenon in northern Africa "Arab spring" isn't making the transition from a pre-Magna Carta world into the Information Age easy. But I'm still cautiously hopeful about places like Egypt.

As for what's happening this week in Pakistan: that's bad news for folks who get killed and injured, and hard on their families. It would be nice if everyone in the world would decide to be nice, and try discussing problems instead of killing folks who disagree. That's not gonna happen. Not soon, anyway.

On the other hand, I'm convinced that most folks prefer raising families, going to work, and playing soccer - or whatever the local pastime is - to dodging bullets and cleaning up after suicide bombers.

'Winning the hearts and minds' may be a cliche by now, and simply won't work for diehard xenophobes of any ilk. But like I said, I'm cautiously hopeful. I think most of us can learn that 'foreigners' aren't demonic emissaries, and that 'change' doesn't mean 'destruction.'

Related posts:
"Gunmen in Pakistan kill nine in attack at mosque on Muslim holiday"
Katharine Houreld; (editing, Clarence Fernandez and Robert Birsel; Reuters (August 9, 2013)

"Volence marred the Muslim holy day of Eid al-Fitr in Pakistan on Friday with gunmen killing nine people in the city of Quetta while a guard in the capital Islamabad shot dead a would-be suicide bomber forcing his way into a mosque.

"The United States has ordered non-essential staff to leave its consulate in the eastern city of Lahore because of the threat of attack. It has also warned its citizens not to travel to Pakistan.

"In Quetta, gunmen fired on the vehicle of a politician driving past worshippers leaving a mosque, killing nine people and wounding 27, police said.

"Quetta is capital of the southwestern province of Baluchistan, where several militant groups are active, including the Pakistani Taliban, who claimed responsibility for a suicide bomb attack that killed 30 people at a policeman's funeral on Thursday.

"Police official Bashir Brohi said Friday's shooting seemed to have been aimed at former provincial government minister Ali Mohammad Jattack, who was passing by in a vehicle, but the motive and perpetrators were not clear.

" 'I was the target,' Jattack told media at the scene.

" 'They killed innocent worshippers belonging to different communities. This is against humanity, it is brutality on the level of animals,' said Jattack, who was not hurt.

"Brohi said most of the victims were coming out of the mosque.

" 'It was an armed attack on the former minister ... it was not an attack on the mosque,' the police official said.

"In a separate attack in Islamabad, a would-be suicide bomber shot dead a guard and wounded three people as he tried to force his way into a Shi'ite mosque, said witness Raza Mohammad....

"...Attacks against Pakistan's minority Shi'ite Muslims, by Sunni Muslim militants, are increasing sharply.

"The attacks on Friday were the latest in a surge of militant violence since Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif took office two months ago, with a string of high-profile incidents in the past two weeks...."
"US withdraws staff from consulate in Lahore, Pakistan, over terror threat"
FoxNews.com (August 9, 2013)

"The State Department has ordered the departure of non-emergency U.S. government personnel from the U.S. Consulate General in Lahore, Pakistan, and has warned Americans to defer all non-essential travel to Pakistan after a specific threat to that mission, Fox News confirms....

"...'The presence of several foreign and indigenous terrorist groups poses a potential danger to U.S. citizens throughout Pakistan,' the statement from the State Department read. 'The Government of Pakistan maintains heightened security measures, particularly in the major cities. Threat reporting indicates terrorist groups continue to seek opportunities to attack locations where U.S. citizens and Westerners are known to congregate or visit.'

"The personnel drawdown at the Lahore consulate was a precautionary measure and wasn't related to the recent closures of numerous U.S. diplomatic missions in the Muslim world, two U.S. officials told the Associated Press...."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, April 5, 2013

North Korea Nuclear Attack: "Extremely Unlikely," But - - -

North Korea's new ruler may have the wisdom which told his father when to stop threatening, and accept the best available appeasement.

Or Kim Jong Un may not fully understand the power which he wields.

I don't know: and am very glad that someone else has to make 'go/no go' decisions for America's military. I'll get back to that.

Living with Uncertainty

Someone on the American president's national security staff said "it's extremely unlikely" that North Korea has a missile which could reach the United States with a nuclear warhead.1 I think he's right, but I also think a key word in the statement is "unlikely."


(from BBC News, used w/o permission)

North Korea wouldn't have to hit Los Angeles or Portland to reach the United States. Parts of Alaska and Hawaii are within range of that country's Taepodong missile.

So is quite a bit of Asia and the western Pacific, if Kim Jong Un decided to attack a "puppet group."

'Might Not,' 'May Not,' Could be,' and Experts

A missile attack needs more than a missile, though. North Korea would need a warhead: preferably, from Kim Jong Un's point of view, a nuclear weapon. His people have developed nuclear bombs: but may not have been able to make them small enough to fit in a missile.

On the other hand, maybe they have.

I'm not concerned for my immediate personal safety. I live near the center of the North American continent, well away from anything that might be a high-value target.

Besides, North Korea's long-range missiles might not be accurate enough to hit a particular target. The country may not have a nuclear bomb compact enough for a missile. Kim Jong Un could be bluffing.

That's a lot of "might not, "may not," and "could be."

What if the 'experts' are wrong?

Warm and Sunny With a Chance of Nuclear Attack

Let's say North Korea's military has a nuclear weapon which will reach Guam. It's a United States territory, not a state: but closer than Anchorage or Honolulu. It might look like a good place to punish 'imperialists.'

About 44,000 folks live in Dededo, Guam. It's got schools, libraries, and a shopping mall: hardly New York City, but ten times larger than the town I call home.


(from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Micronesia_Mall1.JPG, used w/o permission)

Dededo covers quite a wide area, so a bomb as powerful as the one that hit Hiroshima might not kill everyone there. On the other hand, it would be an extremely unpleasant experience for survivors.


(from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hiroshima_Damage_Map.png, used w/o permission)

I suppose it could be argued that folks living in Dededo 'deserve' to be killed, since they are either 'imperialists' or in league with the United States.

I think that makes as much sense saying that God killed Haitians in 2010 for something (allegedly) done two centuries earlier: or that Yankee imperialists caused the quake.2

Decisions, Responsibility

As of Wednesday, April 3, a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile interceptor system is on its way to Guam. It's expensive, and might not stop an incoming missile attack.

But I think deploying THAAD makes sense. Strategic and tactical considerations aside, it would be nice if folks living in Guam had a little protection.

As I've said before, this isn't a 'political' blog, in the sense that I claim one person or group is always right, and everyone who disagrees is icky. I sometimes discuss political issues, since politics is a means by which some decisions are made.

I did not vote for the current American president, but think that some decisions made during this administration were correct: like sending a THAAD system to Guam.

War, in my considered opinion, is something to avoid. But sometimes using armed force is preferable to the alternative. One of the responsibilities of national authorities is defending their nation: even when force is necessary.3

I suppose Kim Jong Un may think that he is 'defending' his territory. I think he is wrong.

"International Authority" and Looking Ahead

Today, "there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power"4 to restrain the likes of Kim Jong Un or Al Qaeda. Eventually I hope that humanity develops something like Tennyson's "Federation of the world." Until that happens, we'll have to make do with nations like the United States - and North Korea - and international organizations like the United Nations and NATO.

I've discussed some of my hopes in other blogs.

Related posts:
1 Excerpts from news and views:
"North Korea lacks means for nuclear strike on U.S., experts say"
Mark Hosenball, Phil Stewart, Reuters (April 5, 2013)

"North Korea's explicit threats this week to strike the United States with nuclear weapons are rhetorical bluster, as the isolated nation does not yet have the means to make good on them, Western officials and security experts say.

"Pyongyang has slowly and steadily improved its missile capabilities in recent years and U.S. officials say its missiles may be capable of hitting outlying U.S. territories and states, including Guam, Alaska and Hawaii.

"Some private experts say even this view is alarmist. There is no evidence, the officials say, that North Korea has tested the complex art of miniaturizing a nuclear weapon to be placed on a long-range missile, a capability the United States, Russia, China and others achieved decades ago.

"In other words, North Korea might be able to hit some part of the United States, but not the mainland and not with a nuclear weapon.

"The threats against the United States by North Korea's young leader Kim Jong-un are 'probably all bluster,' said Gary Samore, until recently the top nuclear proliferation expert on President Barack Obama's national security staff.

" 'It's extremely unlikely they have a nuclear missile which could reach the United States,' said Samore.

"The North Koreans 'are not suicidal. They know that any kind of direct attack (on the United States) would be end of their country,' said Samore, now at Harvard University's Kennedy School.

"On Wednesday, North Korea's state-run KCNA news agency said its military had 'ratified' an attack involving 'cutting-edge smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike means,' an apparent reference to miniaturized nuclear weapons...."
"Korea crisis: UN's Ban warns of 'serious implications' "
BBC News (April 4, 2013)

"UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has appealed to North Korea to change course, saying it has "gone too far" in its rhetoric.

"He said he was concerned any 'unwanted crisis' on the Korean peninsula would have 'very serious implications'.

"The warning came hours after South Korea's foreign minister said the North had shifted a missile with 'considerable range' to its east coast.

"Pyongyang earlier renewed threats of a nuclear strike against the US.

"However, its missiles are not believed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

"White House spokesman Jay Carney described the threats as 'regrettable but familiar', adding the US was taking 'all the necessary precautions'...."
"U.S. Military to Deploy Missile Defense Battery Amid Looming Budget Cuts"
Mike Gruss, Space News, via Space.com (April 4, 2013)

"The U.S. Defense Department plans to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile interceptor system to Guam in the coming weeks to defend the U.S. territory against a possible North Korean missile attack, the Pentagon announced Wednesday (April 3).

"In October, the THAAD system had its first-ever intercept of a medium-range missile. In recent weeks, North Korea has renounced the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War, closed its borders to South Korean workers, severed a diplomatic hotline with Seoul and threatened to launch missiles at U.S. targets.

"Pyongyang has been steadily escalating its war rhetoric since a satellite launch in December and nuclear test in February drew widespread condemnation and tighter sanctions...."
2 Yes, they really said that:
3 There's a none-too-subtle distinction between indiscriminate violence and legitimate defense. As a practicing Catholic, I take Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2263-2267 and 2307-2317 seriously.

4 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2308.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

About North Korea, Power, Risks, and Leadership

North Korea's leader says that he'll restart a nuclear reactor.1 This is particularly troublesome, since Kim Jung Un seems intent on confronting 'imperialists.'

North Korea has, at most, a handful of nuclear weapons: and a production capacity of perhaps one per year. The current Kim also has missiles which could reach parts of the United States, as well as Japan, eastern Russia, and China.

I hope that, like his ancestors, the young leader has the wisdom to know when to stop threatening: and accept the best offer presented as appeasement.

Nuclear Threats and Diplomacy

As I said yesterday, this is a serious situation: and I do not think that the United States would be North Korea's biggest concern, no matter which nation the latest Kim attacked.

The United Nations Secretary-General says that "Nuclear threats are not a game." (BBC News) In the sense that they are not trivial, I'll agree: although in a sense all diplomacy is a sort of 'game,' which can be very useful in helping nations deal with issues.

The Quality of Leadership

Finally, I think it's a mistake to regard North Korea as an 'ordinary' nation. For one thing, I don't think there is any such thing. Each nation is a unique entity, with its own history, culture, and goals.

Nations can, however, be separated into categories. Some are obvious: like "large" or "small;" "new" or "old." Others, not so much: like "democracies," a term which I think has suffered from generations of over- and mis-application.

The quality of leadership is arguably more important than whether a nation's government is organized as a constitutional republic, a hereditary monarchy, a military junta, or whatever. (December 29, 2008)

Kim Jong Un runs a 'democratic people's republic,' a one-man dictatorship whose leader uses familiar 20th-century rhetoric. Despite the somewhat shopworn trappings, I think North Korea may be more of an old-style Asian kingdom: the real thing, not the Fu Manchu and Shangri-La variety.

As I've said before, I think any form of government can work: provided that there's good leadership. In the case of North Korea, I am particularly concerned, because we've got a young ruler who may not yet understand the profound risks which come with the power he wields.

Related posts:
1 Excerpts from the news:
"North Korea says it plans to restart shuttered nuclear reactor"
Jethro Mullen, CNN April 2, 2013)

"After weeks of hurling threats at the United States and its allies, North Korea announced Tuesday it will restart a nuclear reactor it had shut more than five years ago.

"The declaration demonstrates Kim Jong Un's commitment to the country's nuclear weapons program that the international community has tried without success to persuade it to abandon.

"The North's state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported that the reclusive state's atomic energy department intends to 'readjust and restart all the nuclear facilities' at its main nuclear complex, in Yongbyon...."
"North Korea 'crisis gone too far' says UN's Ban Ki-moon"
BBC News (April 2, 2013)

"UN chief Ban Ki-moon has said the North Korea "crisis has gone too far" after Pyongyang announced plans to restart its main Yongbyon nuclear complex.

"Speaking at a news conference during a visit to Andorra, Mr Ban called for urgent talks with the North.

"The move by Pyongyang is the latest in a series of measures in the wake of its third nuclear test in February.

"North Korea has been angered by the resultant UN sanctions and joint US-South Korea annual military drills.

" 'Things must begin to calm down, there is no need for the DPRK [North Korea] to be on a collision course with the international community. Nuclear threats are not a game,' Mr Ban said.

"Earlier, a South Korean foreign ministry spokesman said that if true, the North Korean move - which includes reactivating a reactor mothballed for six years - would be 'highly regrettable'.

"Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei called for restraint from all sides to resolve the 'complex and sensitive' situation.

"Weeks of rhetoric and almost daily threats by the North have raised tensions on the Korean Peninsula to their highest levels for years...."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Algeria, the Amenas Gas Facility, and Harsh Realities

Quite a few folks stopped living rather abruptly in Algeria a few hours ago. Some of them were hostages, killed by their captors. Others were the killers.

I'm not happy about that. It's a tragic situation. But I'm not surprised, either.

People: Nice and Otherwise

I think that most folks are decent enough people, who want to raise their families, earn a living, and live with some degree of security. They're no more likely to take over an industrial facility and kill hostages than I am.

On the other hand, some folks simply aren't nice. They don't behave well, even if they're asked politely. When they behave badly for personal reasons, we often call them criminals. When their motives are more ideological, news media tends to call them "militants." Another term is "terrorist." Either way, they're - - - simply not nice.

There have been relatively tranquil eras. This isn't one of them: Particularly for a place folks have been calling Algeria recently.

North Africa: Background

Folks have been living in that part of north Africa for upwards of 1,800,000 years, but our records start much more recently: around the time that king Gala had ties with Cathage, and king Syphax sided with Rome. You hardly ever hear about Massylii and Masaesyli these days, and that's another topic.

Carthage, Chlodowech, and All That

Roughly two millennia after the Carthage-Rome wars, Chlodowech's successors invaded and held this territory. By that time Chlodowech's Franks had taken over a good-sized chunk of Europe: what we call France: and that isn't quite another topic.

Recent Centuries

About two centuries ago, France took parts of north Africa from the Dey of Algiers, who ran part of the Barbary States, which was a sort of client of the Ottoman Empire - a whole lot more topics.

France lost control of Algeria about a half-century back. These days, Algeria's called (الجمهورية الجزائرية الديمقراطية الشعبي, or Al Jumhuriyah al Jaza'iriyah ad Dimuqratiyah ash Sha'biyah, or the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria. I'll stick with "Algeria" for the rest of this post.

Folks in Algeria, along with just about everyone else in that part of the world, have had their hands full: sorting out the mess left from centuries of colonial rule and the Versailles treaty. More topics.

The Last Few Hours


(FoxNews.com, used w/o permission)

A few hours ago, Algerian troops attacked forces holding hostages at the Amenas gas facility. The 'militants' killed their remaining hostages before being killed by Algerian troops.1

Ideally, Algeria's President President Abdelaziz Bouteflika would have politely asked the militants to please let their hostages go: after which Mokhtar Belmokhtar and company would have released them. After, of course, resolving whatever misunderstanding had prompted the raid in the first place.

Crime, Death, and Other Unpleasantness

We don't live in an ideal world, and that's not how things work.

The United States government tried acting as if taking hostages, blowing up airliners, and similar activities, were crimes: the sort of thing we generally let the police force and social workers deal with.

I think the deaths of assorted athletes, tourists, diplomats, and travelers, helped America's leadership decide that their 'let the police handle it' attitude wasn't working. (January 22, 2010; August 5, 2007)

Eventually, America's policy became 'we will never negotiate with terrorists.' As I recall, this happened during the Reagan administration. What we're supposed to remember about that president is Oliver North, so maybe it was somebody else. Or, not.

"Never" and a Grain or Two of Salt

Particularly where national policy is concerned, I take terms like "never" with the proverbial grain of salt. Anything involving human beings is going to get very complicated, very fast, and "never" is a fairly simple idea.

Even so, I think the basic idea is sound. Folks who run outfits like Al Qaeda are very unlikely to change their minds about killing anyone who doesn't agree with them. Given the circumstances, I don't think it makes sense to "negotiate" with them in hopes that they'll start behaving nicely.

It's fairly easy for me to have that opinion, since I don't know anyone who died as a result of what those "militants" did in Algeria. If I did - well, that's a hypothetical situation: one which I hope I never face.

I gather that this particular run-in with "militants" was handled by the Algerian government. Even so, a spokeswoman for the American State Department repeated what's been this country's policy for a few decades: "The United States does not negotiate with terrorists." (FoxNews.com)

Harsh as it may seem, I think it's still a good idea.

More:
Related posts:
1Excerpts from today's news:
"Algeria crisis: 'Captors and hostages die in assault' "
BBC News (January 19, 2013)
"Algerian troops have ended a siege at a gas facility in the Sahara desert killing 11 Islamist militants after they killed seven hostages, Algerian state news agency APS has said.
"The hostages were summarily killed as the troops tried to free them, it said.

"Foreign workers were among the hostages, but the nationalities of the dead are not known.

"UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed the crisis was over and that lives had been lost.

"At a joint news conference with his US counterpart Leon Panetta, Mr Hammond said the loss of life was 'appalling and unacceptable and we must be clear that it is the terrorists who bear sole responsibility for it'.

"Britain was pressing Algeria for further details, he added.

"Mr Hammond said the kidnappers' leaders would be 'held to account for their actions'.

" 'The full force of the UK and US and other allied countries will bear down upon them,' he said.

"The militants had been involved in a stand-off since Thursday after trying to occupy the remote site.

"Clearing mines

"On Friday, 573 Algerians and about 100 of 132 foreigners working at the plant were freed, Algerian officials said...."
"One American dead in hostage siege in Algeria"
FoxNews.com (January 19, 2013)

"Algerian authorities gave no indication of how many people were still captive at natural gas complex in Algeria the day after an American worker was found dead at the plant and the U.S. sought to secure the release of Americans still being held by Al Qaeda-linked terrorists.

"Frederick Buttaccio, a Texas resident, died of a heart attack during a raid by the Algerian military to end the standoff, Fox News confirmed Friday. The general manager of the complex, Mark Cobb, also of Texas, was able to escape with members of his Algerian staff and is safe....

"...It was not immediately clear whether Buttaccio was the only American killed in the hostage standoff....

"...Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she spoke by telephone with Algerian Prime Minister Abdelmalek Sellal to get an update on Americans and others in danger at the sprawling Ain Amenas refinery 800 miles south of Algiers. She said the 'utmost care must be taken to preserve innocent life.'...

"...Clinton talked to reporters after the Obama administration confirmed that Americans were still being held hostage, even as some U.S. citizens were being flown out of the country for recovery in Europe. The Algerian state news agency reported that 12 hostages had been killed since Wednesday's start of an Algerian rescue operation, and world leaders steadily increased their criticism of the North African country's handling of the attack....

"...Clinton, however, defended Algeria's action. 'Let's not forget: This is an act of terror,' she told reporters in Washington. 'The perpetrators are the terrorists. They are the ones who have assaulted this facility, have taken hostage Algerians and others from around the world as they were going about their daily business.'...

"...Still, the U.S. flatly rejected an offer by the militants -- led by a Mali-based al-Qaida offshoot known as the Masked Brigade -- to free two American hostages in exchange for the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind sheikh convicted of plotting to blow up New York City landmarks and considered the spiritual leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani scientist convicted of shooting at two U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. Both are jailed in the United States.

" 'The United States does not negotiate with terrorists,' State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said...."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Dead Syrians, Stability, and Getting a Grip

First, some news and views. Then I'll opine a bit.
"U.N. observers in Syria see gruesome evidence of a new massacre"
Los Angeles Times (June 8, 2012)

"Bullet-pocked homes and bloodstained walls. Shell casings littering the ground in a ghost town still smoldering from the onslaught.

"A United Nations observer team on Friday finally reached the site of Syria's latest apparent massacre, a now-abandoned farming village where opposition activists accuse pro-government forces of killing dozens of civilians this week in an artillery bombardment and grisly door-to-door executions.

" 'Young children, infants, my brother, his wife and seven children … all dead,' said a grieving man in a video distributed by the U.N. 'I will show you the blood. They burned his house.'..."
"The U.N.'s Syria disaster"
The Post's View, The Washington Post (June 8, 2012)

"THIS MAY BE remembered as the week in which the illusion that the bloodshed in Syria could be stopped by United Nations diplomats was destroyed once and for all. Inside the country, the killing sharply and sickeningly accelerated. In Washington, U.N. envoy Kofi Annan finally had to acknowledge that his calamitous peace initiative, which has provided the United States and its allies with an excuse for inaction for the past 11 weeks, 'may be dead.'

"Mr. Annan's concession was forced in part by the latest massacre by a government-backed militia. In a village near Hama, some 80 people were butchered and their homes burned...."
"In Its Unyielding Stance on Syria, Russia Takes Substantial Risks in Middle East"
Ellen Barry, News Analysis, The New York Times (June 8, 2012)

"MOSCOW - The international deadlock over Syria has, in a dreadful way, provided balm for old grievances in this city. After years of fuming about Western-led campaigns to force leaders from power, Russia has seized the opportunity to make its point heard.

"This time, its protests cannot be set aside as they were when NATO began airstrikes in Libya or when Western-led coalitions undertook military assaults in Iraq and Serbia. Instead, the international community has come to Russia’s doorstep.

" On Friday, a top State Department official visited Moscow, presumably seeking to persuade the Kremlin to reconsider its stance and contribute to an effort to engineer a transition from the rule of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a longtime Russian ally. In remarks after the meeting, Russia's top negotiator was implacable, telling a reporter that Moscow’s position was 'a matter of principle.'

"Russia's leaders have said repeatedly that their goal is to guard against instability, not to support Mr. Assad...."
"United Nations frets about 'sitting duck' monitors in Syria"
Tim Witcher, The Daily Star (UK) (June 9, 2012)

"The United Nations is increasingly worried about the unarmed observers it has sent into Syria to monitor the war between President Bashar Assad's troops and opposition rebels.

"The U.N. Supervision Mission in Syria is caught between hostile troops accused of firing at its patrols and increasingly bitter Syrians who cannot understand why it has not halted the bloodshed, officials said.

"Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, likened the monitors to '300 sitting ducks in a shooting gallery, one IED from a disaster,' at a recent U.N. Security Council meeting...."
The Los Angeles Times seems to be doing fairly straightforward reporting. And, sadly, Syria's boss has another mass death of civilians to explain.

The Washington Post's op-ed may have something to do with the upcoming November presidential election: or not. Either way, it looks like the W.P. has decided that asking Syria's boss to start acting nice isn't working.

The New York Times' op-ed seems to imply that (nice) Russia is protecting the world against the (nasty) west:
"...After years of fuming about Western-led campaigns to force leaders from power, Russia has seized the opportunity to make its point heard...."
(The New York Times)
I could be wrong about that, of course.

The Daily Star brings up an important point: the U.N. observers are in an awkward position. Folks in Syria understandably seem to want the observers to 'do something.' Which is frustrating, since the U.N. observers are doing just that: observing.

And since even Syria's neighbors don't particularly like outsiders observing what happens to Syrians when they're not properly appreciative of Asad, the U.N. observers are under attack themselves.

What continues to impress me about the situation in Syria is that, as far as I've seen, nobody's figured out a way to blame the Jews. As I've said before:
"...this is, I think, a hopeful sign. Maybe more folks are starting to consider the idea of living with neighbors: instead of killing them.

"It's a start, and that's yet another topic."
(May 26, 2012)
Finally, about Russia's decision to defend Asad's regime: Stability is nice. But it seems to me that Syrians who aren't on Asad's 'preferred' list don't want "stability." They want a government that doesn't kill its own citizens.

I think that's a reasonable desire.

Somewhat-related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Killings in Houla: There's Hope in What Wasn't Said

This is bad news. Tragic.
"Syria crisis: Houla child massacre confirmed by UN"
BBC News (May 26, 2012)
"UN observers have counted at least 90 bodies, including 32 children, after a Syrian government attack on a town...."
But what isn't in this article makes me cautiously hopeful. I'll get back to that.

I'm covering quite a bit of ground in this post:

Houla Killings: Real? Very Likely

Interestingly, Syria's boss isn't claiming that the killings in Houla didn't happen: or that the place doesn't really exist. Maybe Syria's leadership learned about keeping a story plausible, after that experience in 2007. (October 17, 2007, September 23, 2007, September 18, 2007)

A major problem with denying that anybody got hurt in Houla is that someone took video of the aftermath:
"...Horrific video footage has emerged from Houla of dozens of dead children, covered in blood, their arms and legs strewn over one another. It is unverified, but our correspondent says such images would be difficult to fake.

"International media cannot report freely in Syria and it is impossible to verify reports of violence.

"A team of UN observers visited the town on Saturday and afterwards Maj-Gen Mood said they could confirm 'the use of small arms, machine gun[s], artillery and tanks.'

"But he did not say who was behind the killings.
(BBC News)
I hope the BBC correspondent is a bit more sophisticated than the folks at Reuters, who didn't spot what may be the worst bit of botched digital editing outside 'Photoshop 101' classes. I've posted about that before:
(Back to the list of headings)

Who's Said What

Here's a summary of comments on the houla killings, according to the BBC:
  • UN mission head Maj-Gen Robert Mood
    • "Indiscriminate"
    • "Unforgivable"
  • UK Foreign Secretary William Hague
    • An "appalling crime"
  • UN chief Ban Ki-moon
    • A "flagrant violation of international law"
  • Syria's government
    • The fault of "armed terrorist gangs"
  • "Activists"
    • The result of
      • shelling
      • Summary executions
      • Butchery by the regime militia known as the "shabiha"
  • Arab League head Nabil al-Arabi
    • A "horrific crime"
(Back to the list of headings)

Words and Actions

Those folks in Houla are dead, and nothing's going to change that. But in circumstances like this, survivors often expect some sort of action to be taken. Or at least an official statement to get drafted. Here's what we've got so far, apparently:
  • UN-Arab League peace envoy Kofi Annan, and the Arab League
    • Condemned Friday's assault
  • France's Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius Fabius
    • Making immediate arrangements for a Paris meeting of the Friends of Syria group
  • 250 UN observers
    • Observing
Giving credit where credit is due, the UN observers seem to have at least been keeping score:
"...The UN says at least 10,000 have been killed since the protests began...."
(BBC News)
Tempting as it is to write something sarcastic about arranging a meeting in Paris, I won't. Just 'doing something' can be effective in action movies: but this is real life.

Quite a few people in quite a few countries have to figure out what can and should be done. Maybe Paris is a place where the folks involved won't get into an argument over what city the discussion should be held in.

(Back to the list of headings)

Friends of Syria

That "Friends of Syria" outfit include Western and Arab nations, but not Russia or China. Russia and China don't seem to like the idea of sanctioning Syria's current boss, and have blocked United Nations sanctions before.

I'll grant that whether or not sanctions work in situations like this is debatable, and that's another topic.

(Back to the list of headings)

Promises and the United Nations

Briefly, here's the sort of concrete action that's been promised:
  • UN-Arab League peace envoy Kofi Annan
    • Contacting Syria's government to
      • "Convey in the clearest terms the expectations of the international community
      • Visit Syria
      • Do the same thing
  • UK Foreign Secretary William Hague
    • Will call for an urgent session of the UN Security Council
      • Pretty soon
  • Arab League head Nabil al-Arabi
    • Has urged the Security Council to "stop the escalation of killing and violence by armed gangs and government military forces,"
  • The opposition Free Syrian Army
    • Unless the United Nations Security Council can keep civilians alive
      • the ceasefire is off
I mentioned what the United Nations is doing in Syria before. UN observers are - observing:
"...A team of UN observers visited the town on Saturday and afterwards Maj-Gen Mood said they could confirm 'the use of small arms, machine gun[s], artillery and tanks.'

"But he did not say who was behind the killings....
(BBC News)
(Back to the list of headings)

"Just Refused to Come"

I don't really blame Maj-Gen Mood and the observers for showing up a little late, observing bits and pieces of people, and concluding that they'd been killed by a variety of weapons. My guess is that their orders limit what they can do: and that the UN observers lack both the authority and the means to do more than keep score.

On the other hand, I'm sympathetic with the local folks. Back to BBC News:
"...Our correspondent says local people are angry that the observers failed to intervene to stop the killing.

"Abu Emad, speaking from Houla, said their appeals to the monitors failed to produce action.

"We told them at night, we called seven of them. We told them the massacre is being committed right now at Houla by the mercenaries of this regime and they just refused to come and stop the massacre.'
(BBC News)
Again, I think it's very likely that the United Nations observers simply can't get involved: and don't have the equipment to take effective action. Or the authority.

The situation is sad, tragic, and intensely frustrating. Syria's current boss is, I think, unlikely to stop killing Syrians. Bashar al-Assad seems to like the newfangled title of "President," but his actions strongly suggest that he's an old-school autocrat.

There may have been a time when a country's boss could instill loyalty by killing large numbers of his subjects. These days, even the Arab League finally got fed up with the Syrian 'President' and his enforcers.

It's not the 20th century any more, and I think all but the most committed - or clueless - autocrats are beginning to realize that 'the good old days' are over.

(Back to the list of headings)

News About Syria: What's Missing

What impressed me about that news about the latest atrocity in Syria was what wasn't there. None of the people or organizations mentioned BBC News seems to have blamed Israel. That, in my opinion, is remarkable.

Maybe the United Nations will get around to condemning Israel for what happened in Houla. The rationale could be that, because Israel always starves Palestinians and does bad things, someone in Syria had to kill all those kids.

Putting it that simply, the idea sounds daft: and I think it is. Add enough emotionally-charged words, and I think some folks might still believe it. Or want to.

The rest of us, I suspect, are beginning to realize that it's a big world: and that killing folks who don't follow the local neighborhood association rules can't be tolerated any more.

We're a very long way from having an "international authority with the necessary competence and power"1 to deal with people like Syria's Bashar al-Assad effectively. But going nearly 24 hours without blaming the Jews for an incident like this is, I think, a hopeful sign. Maybe more folks are starting to consider the idea of living with neighbors: instead of killing them.

It's a start, and that's yet another topic.

(Back to the list of headings)
Somewhat-related posts:
1 I think the United Nations is an international authority: but I also think that it's a far cry from the "international authority with the necessary competence and power" I mentioned. That term is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

"However, 'as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.'106"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2308)
Implying that it might be okay to develop an "international authority with the necessary competence and power" to handle regional troublemakers does not mean that the Catholic Church is plotting to take over the world. I've discussed government, Catholicism, subsidiarity, and lizard men, before:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Arab League: Syria Suspended - My Take

Syria is in the news. What's different this time is what a televised set of Syrians is protesting:
"Regime backers rally after Arab League suspends Syria"
CNN (November 13, 2011)

"State media showed throngs of demonstrators rallying in support of Syria's president Sunday, a day after the Arab League's decision to suspend the country's membership...."
What's missing from the CNN article is any mention of the usual denunciation of Israel, accusations of America being to blame for the current embarrassment, or riots over a cartoon.

I find this change of pace refreshing, and guardedly hopeful.

I also think that Arab national leaders who kept up with events of the last few decades may be realizing that times are changing. Have changed.

From an old-school point of view, Syria's boss hasn't been doing anything all that unusual. For folks who noticed changes that started somewhere in the 18th century, not so much. Al-Assad's habit of killing subjects he doesn't like is a little extreme these days.

Back to that article:
"...The Arab League's decision Saturday dealt a stinging blow to Syria, and could open the door for broader international sanctions against the al-Assad regime.

"Why did Arab League move on Syria?

"Eighteen of the Arab League's 22 members voted to punish Syria in an emergency session at its headquarters.

"Only two member nations -- Lebanon and Yemen -- voted against the measure. Iraq abstained and Syria was barred from voting....

"...The punitive measures come after al-Assad's failure to abide by an Arab League proposal earlier this month to halt all violence, release detainees, withdraw armed elements from populated areas and allow unfettered access to the nation by journalists and Arab League monitors.

"But none of that has happened, according to daily reports streaming out of Syria...."
(CNN)
There's more:
  • Syrians who aren't thrilled with Assad as boss man say that some of the eager demonstrators were forced to act loyal
  • Assad's enforcers have killed about 3,500 people so far
    • That we know of
  • CNN acknowledges that they can't support Assad's claims
    • He won't let their reporters ask questions
That's pretty much business-as-usual in that part of the world. A news service saying that they can't confirm some boss man's story is a fairly new wrinkle: one that seems to have emerged around the time that folks started getting news from more than The New York Times and its tributaries, and broadcast networks.

But, as I said: The Arab League suspending Syria's membership is an unusual act. I hope it's more than just a publicity stunt.

Related posts:
In the news:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Pakistan, Threats, Diplomacy, and All That

Pakistan had more news and editorial coverage toward the end of September, 2011, than usual. About 50 imams said that Muslims should attack America if this country attacks Pakistan.

I don't doubt that some imams issued that sort of fatwa. Odds are that around four dozen did so: which even in a nation the size of Pakistan is a noticeable number.

This doesn't mean that I've started digging a fallout shelter under the basement, though: or try to make my house vapor-tight. I'm concerned, of course, but after decades of 'death to the great Satan America' stuff, the shock value of what those imams did is somewhat reduced.

Pakistan: Still a Mess

I don't envy the folks who are apparently trying to establish a plausible national government in Pakistan: and extend the reach of their influence beyond parts of Islamabad and a few other cities.

They've got a country with a long and complicated history, where much of the territory seems to be in the hands of folks whose culture hasn't changed much in several thousand years.

On the bright side, Pakistan is better off than Somalia.

For example, a few years ago Pakistan's bosses lied about how they would use money they got from the United States. The idea was that the money would go to Pakistan's military. Instead, Pervez Musharraf and his cronies used it for domestic programs.

I think it's a testament to their character and ethics that they used it for government projects, instead of simply pocketing it. Granted, those domestic projects probably helped their public image: but hey, they've got elections to think of. (October 5, 2009)

Diplomacy, Cultural Sensitivity, and Getting a Grip

Some op-ed pieces1 about Pakistan's edgy imams were drearily predictable:
"...But don't the American's [sic] understand the psyche and character of Pakistan's military/intelligence nexus yet? Rather than spurring the ISI/Army into doing more, this public humiliation will have only further dented the frail ego of the military - an ego that has only just recovered from the dishonour of the Osama bin Laden raid...."
George Fulton, South Asian News Agency (September 29, 2011)
There's something to that criticism.

As I recall, American forces had tried several times to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Every time, bin Laden had moved before they arrived. American commanders had been sharing information with their Pakistani counterparts. Showing the 'insensitivity' Mr. Fulton deplores, the Americans decided to launch an attack without telling Pakistani officials. Perhaps by coincidence, that time Osama bin Laden hadn't gone elsewhere: and now he's dead.

Pakistani officials were furious. Naturally enough. Rules of hospitality have ancient roots. I think they serve a useful function in society. But somewhere along the line, Western civilization learned that sometimes dealing with serious threats is more important than accommodating a guest.

I'm assuming that someone in Pakistan's alleged government was passing information along to bin Laden's people: but who knows? Maybe the string of failed raids with shared information, followed by one successful raid without shared information, was pure coincidence.

Diplomacy, Assumptions, and 'Natives'

America seems to have finally flushed overt bias, the sort that drips from Chief Justice Taney's opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford,2 out of its system. It's hard to imagine someone describing folks living in the Darfur region as an 'inferior race,' and being taken seriously. Or avoiding legal trouble, most likely.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that too many folks apparently still see humanity divided three ways:
  • Citizens of my country
  • Civilized foreigners
  • 'Natives'
Old ideas die hard.3

I think old notions about what can be expected from 'civilized foreigners' and 'natives' is behind demands for 'cultural sensitivity.' It's like the old movies:
  • 'He's simply not British.'
  • 'You see, Throckmorton? Typical native superstition.'
  • 'An American! You will realize what's at stake!'
Over-simplified? Yes.

Maybe there are diplomatic reasons for ignoring blatantly unethical, and occasionally self-destructive, behavior on the part of national leaders. Maybe an American official wasn't as suave as possible, dealing with yet one more Pakistani government SNAFU.

But I think it's a huge mistake to assume that 'foreigners' can't be held to the same ethical standards Americans should expect from our leaders. And that it isn't
'tolerant, 'open-minded,' or 'diplomatic' to expect the same standards from foreigners.

Ethical Standards? American Leaders?!

I said that Americans should expect ethical standards from our leadership. Competence would be nice, too. As far as the lot we've got in Congress right now? There's an election coming next year: and that's another topic.

Related posts:
News and views:
1Excerpts from news and views:
"Pakistani Threat Escalates as Imams Call for Jihad"
FoxNews.com (September 27, 2011)

"The United States' strained relationship with Pakistan has grown more tense after 50 influential imams and religious leaders there threatened a jihad if the U.S. attacks the nuclear-armed country.

"The threat came as Pakistan seemed to speak from both sides of the mouth. Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar insisted to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday that the government is part of the solution in Afghanistan.

" 'Pakistan is willing to do its best with the international partners and, most notably, the governments of Afghanistan and the United States, to acquit itself of this high responsibility (in Afghanistan),' she told the 193-nation assembly.

"But her remarks came after Pakistan warned the United States to stop accusing it of playing a double game with Islamist militants and as it showered praise on China....

"...The religious leaders threatening jihad are associated with the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), a coalition of local groups. According to Pakistani news reports, the council issued a press release declaring that it is illegitimate to call the U.S. a superpower because only Allah deserves the title.

"The scholars urged the Pakistani government to end the country's role in the war on terrorism and to try to establish a new international bloc made up of China, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan....

"...Last week, Adm. Mike Mullen, the outgoing chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, linked the Haqqani network, the most violent faction among Taliban militants in Afghanistan, to Pakistan.

" 'The Haqqani network, for one, acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's internal services intelligence agency,' Mullen said...."
"Understanding the duplicity"
George Fulton, South Asian News Agency (September 29, 2011)

"The writer lived for several years in Pakistan, working for various TV channels such as Geo and Aaj. He has now moved back to the UK and does freelance consultancy work
The very public spat between Pakistan and the US which emerged last week after Admiral Mike Mullen, a man known for his straight talking, outed the ISI and called the Haqqani militants a 'veritable arm' of the spy agency, has left many analysts perplexed. Why do it? What benefit would America gain from such a public announcement? Perhaps it was frustration on behalf of the Americans. Admiral Mullen is due to retire at the end of the year. Maybe, with his forthcoming demobbing, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff felt able to candidly blow off steam at the perceived duplicity of the ISI? Unlikely. This evidence given to the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 22 was a designed ratcheting up of pressure on Pakistan. The defence secretary, Leon E Panetta, threatened 'operational steps' against Pakistan — a euphemistic term for possible American raids against the Haqqanis in North Waziristan.

"But don't the American's understand the psyche and character of Pakistan's military/intelligence nexus yet? Rather than spurring the ISI/Army into doing more, this public humiliation will have only further dented the frail ego of the military - an ego that has only just recovered from the dishonour of the Osama bin Laden raid. Mullen's announcement will only have helped embolden those anti-American elements within the intelligence services and undermine the pro-Americans within the military...."
"Pakistan won't do more in war on terror: Yousuf Raza Gilani"
AFP, via Economic Times (September 29, 2011)

"Pakistan on Thursday hit back at mounting US demands for action against Al-Qaeda-linked extremists, refusing to be pressured into doing more in the war on terror.

"Washington says it is conducting a final review on whether to blacklist the network linked to Pakistani intelligence as a terror group, which risks then exposing Islamabad to economic sanctions.

"The outgoing top US military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, accused Pakistan of exporting violent extremism to Afghanistan and called the Haqqani network a 'veritable arm' of its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency...."
2 Dred Scott v. Sandford, the slavery compromise, and 19th century treaty violations, are part of America's history. But we do, eventually, correct injustices:3 I think it's a good thing that using phrases like 'inferior races' to describe folks without congenital melanin deficiency is something of a faux pas these days. I also think that too many folks cling to old biases, at least unconsciously:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Pakistan, American Aid: What a Mess

This excerpt from today's news shouldn't be a surprise:
"Pakistan: US suspends $800m of military aid"
BBC News South Asia (July 10, 2011)

"The US says it is withholding some $800m in military aid to Pakistan.

"White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley told ABC television that Pakistan had 'taken some steps that have given us reason to pause on some of the aid'.

"He said the US raid that killed Osama Bin Laden in May had affected ties but he insisted the relationship 'must be made to work over time'.

"The $800m (£500m) equates to about a third of the annual US security aid to Pakistan, US officials say.

"In figures submitted to the International Monetary Fund last autumn, Pakistan's defence expenditure in its 2010-2011 budget was put at $6.41bn - an increase of $1.27bn on the previous year...."

'Good Guys,' 'Bad Guys,' and Getting a Grip

There's no shortage of assumptions a person could make about the U.S.-Pakistan situation. Here's a short list of possibilities:
That's just scratching the surface. My guess is that by now, everyone from the CIA and the Illuminati to space aliens and Zionists have been fingered as the 'real' cause of Pakistan's latest setback.

I'm inclined to think that Pakistan's alleged national government discovered that being 'important' to American foreign policy doesn't mean being immune to cause and effect.

I've discussed Pakistan's remarkable talent for not noticing Osama bin Laden's compound and support staff before. Also American insensitivity to the Pakistani custom of letting terrorists know when and where a raid is going to happen.

Cultural Sensitivity / Making Allowances

Seriously, I recognize that the lot who say they're really Pakistani's national government are in an awkward position. And that they can't, for economic, political, historical, cultural, and military reasons control more than a few parts of a few cities - most of the time. And some parts of the rest of the country - some of the time.

When doing so won't offend tribal leaders, Al Qaeda, Taliban supporters, or assorted other interested parties, of course.

As I said, Pakistan's alleged national leaders are in an awkward position.

That doesn't necessarily make them 'good guys,' or 'bad guys.' But it doesn't make them reliable allies, either.

Maybe someday, when the movers and shakers in that part of the world decide to edge their way into the 18th century - - -

Lessons Learned

As I've said before, I don't think America - or any other country - is perfect. This country does, however, learn from its mistakes. Slowly, sometimes - but we do learn.

For example, America's leaders seem to have learned something from the 20th century's Cold War. We discovered, finally, that backing trigger-happy warlords, or occasionally-deluded despots, is a really bad idea. In the long run. Even if - maybe particularly if - they claim to be 'pro-democracy.'

That may explain why the United States is withholding some money - instead of apologizing to Pakistani leaders for finding bin Laden; and trying to protect them from terrorists. Terrorists they have taken in as guests.

Pakistan and America: Now What?

I don't think American can completely withdraw from Pakistan.

Attractive as the idea of pretending that the rest of the world isn't there may be - America lives in the 21st century. If there was ever an era when a nation could make believe that nobody else existed - - - this isn't it.

Like it or not, Pakistan is between India and the Middle East, China and Africa, and fairly centrally located for all but the American continents. On top of that, somebody with government connections in Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and there doesn't seem to be anybody - alleged national leaders, tribal heads, or terrorists - who really has control of the territory.

They don't even seem to have worked out the sort of dynamic stability that places like the United Kingdom and the United States manage, when it comes to local/regional/national control.

America, Western countries, and anybody else who doesn't want a worse mess to start - simply can't afford to let Pakistan collapse on its own. Even if ethical issues weren't involved, America's interests are involved when it comes to keeping Pakistani leaders from ruining their country.

Related posts:
In the news:
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.