Showing posts with label war on terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war on terror. Show all posts

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Still Blogging About Anachronisms, Autocrats, and America

My eldest daughter recently asked me if I was writing for Another War-on-Terror Blog any more. If you follow this blog (thank you!), you've noticed that posts are few and far between: particularly compared to a few years ago.

About Interest: Mine and Yours

It's not that I've lost interest. I'm still following what I think may be the major conflict of the 21st century. I still think that the efforts of a few folks to impose their anachronistic views on everybody else are a real threat. Not just a threat to America: Outfits like Al Qaeda have a distressing habit of killing folks who don't dress the 'right' way, or who simply get in the way.

On the other hand, I don't think I'd be doing anyone a favor by spouting off about every event and personality connected with the war on terror. I've posted 1,410 times so far, this one will make it 1,411: and who's going to have time to read all that? Or be interested??

Autocrats in the Information Age

I'm optimistic about the eventual outcome of the war on terror. Al Qaeda and others who desperately want to live in what seems to be an imagined past where their foibles were accommodated face a terrible obstacle. It's not the armed might of the United States, or United Nations resolutions. Most people simply don't like being killed at the whim of their ruler.

Folks in Afghanistan don't seem to have enjoyed having their lives run by the Taliban.

Iraq's citizens didn't like Saddam Hussein, but cooperated in their country's defense. They cooperated with Al Qadea in Iraq, too: until they noticed that the 'lions of Islam' were killing their neighbors for trivial reasons, while the foreign devils were rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and making progress at stopping the aforementioned lions from killing their neighbors. That's when the Anbar Awakening happened.

Over-simplified? Yes. But I think there's a pattern here. Folks in places like the Middle East put up with remarkably brutal and incompetent leadership, until they learn about what's happened in the last thousand years or so in places like Europe.

The last I heard, old-school autocrats were still killing their subjects in an effort to instill loyalty. And failing.

Why the American Emphasis?

If you've read more than a few posts, you'll have noticed that:
  • I
    • Am an American citizen
      • Who prefers living here
    • Think that America isn't
      • perfect
      • The source of all ickiness
    • Think that
      • Freedom is precious
      • War isn't nice
      • War may be preferable to the alternatives
  • This blog
    • Is written from my point of view
    • Is not
      • Chauvinistically 'pro-American'
      • A screed against
        • Yankee imperialism
        • Western oppression
        • Fluoridated water
"Fluoridated water?!" I remember the 'good old days,' when the establishment was mostly conservative and nearly all Anglo-American: and never want to go back. And that's almost another topic.

So, why the American emphasis?

As an American citizen, I tend to notice what's happening in this country: and pay attention, since there's always an election coming up. More topics.

I think that America is one of the few countries that's able to deal with terrorists: and one of a handful that's willing to do so. Just as important, American leaders are often able to encourage other national leaders to form coalitions.

'Wouldn't It be Nice - - -?'

As I've said before, I don't think war is nice. Things get broken, people get killed. But we don't live in a 'nice' world.

Someday we may have a global authority that's able to deal with threats to the common good. Maybe even without using force. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

Until we've got something like Tennyson's "parliament of man ... federation of the world," we'll have to muddle along with coalitions operating under United Nations mandates.

And I'll be writing posts from time to time, about what I think are interesting or major developments in the war on terror.

Somewhat-related posts:

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Beer, Basketball, the War on Terror, Today's News, and Me

One of the reasons I started this blog, back in July of 2007, was to provide a sort of scrapbook of news items relating to the war on terror. Which, officially, doesn't exist any more. Not as an officially-recognized term, anyway. (March 30, 2009)

Whatever it's called, what I regard as the first major global conflict of the 21st century is still going on. And, in my opinion, will continue for years. Probably decades. Generations, maybe.

It's not that I'm pessimistic: quite the contrary. I believe that, in the end, we will still be able to enjoy beer and basketball - or decide not to; that women will have the option to drive cars; and that wearing trousers will not be a capital offense.

The reason I think this conflict will not be resolved quickly is that it is not only spread across the world: but is complex. What I think may take the most time is enough people deciding that they can live with a world that's changed since the days of Ur and the Chaldeans.

Economics, Religion, and a Burr Under the Saddle

At the risk of being pegged as one of the folks who see everything as a class conflict between bourgeois capitalists and the oppressed proletariat, I think economics is involved in the war on terror.

That's because I think that theocracies like the Ayatollahs' Iran aren't good for business, among other things. I've discussed economics, and thinking straight, before.
Where was I? War on terror. Economics. Religious crazies in charge isn't good for business. Right. Moving on.

I also think that the war on terror exists in large part because we live in a world of individual rights, Barbies, soap operas, bikinis, and Mickey Mouse. That offends folks like the Ayatollahs and Al Qaeda's leaders. They seem to have a burr under their saddle about people not being sufficiently 'Islamic.' Their own particular flavor of "Islam," of course. It's hard to imagine Shia and Sunni chauvinists, for example, getting along.1

I'm not entirely happy with all aspects of contemporary Western culture: but my beliefs include a high respect for tolerance and freedom. And that's another topic, for another blog.
I've discussed 'tolerance,' real and imagined, before: and my take on culture shock as a factor in the war on terror.

News and Views North Africa and the Middle East

I don't think that information technology 'made' folks in places like Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, get fed up with their autocrats. I do think that Information Age technology and the social structures that are evolving around it lubricated the revolts: in part by letting individuals learn that they weren't the only ones who were ready for change.

I also think that folks like the Libyan colonel and the Saudi royal family aren't the only ones who are having a hard time adjusting to the Information Age. And that is yet another topic. (February 23, 2011, August 14, 2009)

Now, excerpts from news and views about -

Bahrain

"Sectarian clashes erupted at a school in Bahrain on Thursday, fueling fears a planned march on the royal court on Friday could inflame the Gulf island where a majority of citizens is Shi'ite but the ruling family is Sunni...."
(Reuters)

Egypt

"The Army joined with armed thugs yesterday to force protesters out of Cairo's Tahrir Square – one of many incidents lately that make Egyptians blame regime elements for trying to limit the scope of the revolution...."
(Christian Science Monitor)

Libya

"France became the first Western country to recognize Libya's opposition as the country's legitimate representative. The move comes as the European Union agreed to toughen sanctions against the North African country and its leader, Moammar Gadhafi...."
(Voice of America News)
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testifying Thursday before the House Appropriations Committee, said, 'We are suspending our relationships with the existing Libyan embassy, so we expect them to end operating as the embassy of Libya.'..."
(CNN)

Saudi Arabia

"Saudi police opened fire Thursday to disperse a protest in the mainly Shiite, oil-producing east, leaving at least one man injured, as the government struggled to prevent a wave of unrest sweeping the Arab world from reaching the kingdom...."
(msnbc.com)

Yemen

"President Ali Abdullah Saleh on Thursday proposed a new constitution that allows transition of some powers from the executive authority to the parliament, but opposition parties rejected the proposal and said Saleh's initiatives were too late...." (News Yemen)

"National Democratic Front Party (NDFP(announced on Thursday full support to the recent national initiative made by President Ali Abdullah Saleh at the General National Conference to come out of the current crisis witnessed by the national arena...."
(Yemen News Agency (SABA))
Somewhat-related posts:
News and views:

1 "The Search for Al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, and Future," Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution, via Intelligence in Recent Public Literature, CIA (2008)

Friday, December 3, 2010

Today's News: Now What?!

Today's news is more of the same: only more so, in the case of Korea.

This is a somewhat rambling post. A point I'm trying to make is that not all countries are the same. I've said this before. (June 9, 2009)

That may seem obvious, but I've gotten the impression that folks with quite a few sorts of views sometimes think that all countries are pretty much like America - except that America is at fault for their problems; or that all countries should be like America. I don't mind living in a world where everybody isn't exactly like me - and that's another topic.

Korea

"South Korea's defense minister vows airstrikes if North Korea attacks"
CNN (December 3, 2010)

"South Korea's new defense minister said his country would respond with airstrikes if North Korea attacks it again, South Korean state media reported Friday. It is some of the strongest rhetoric since the conflict broke out late last month.

" 'We will definitely air raid North Korea, Kim Kwan-jin said at his confirmation hearing when asked how the South would respond if struck again, according to the official Yonhap News Agency.

"Kim was appointed defense minister last week amid growing tensions on the Korean peninsula following an exchange of gunfire between the two sides.

"His comments reflect a potential shift in South Korea's policy toward provocations from the North. Previously, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak warned of severe consequences if the North launched another attack, but declined to name specifics...."
I can't say that I'm happy about this development.

I'd prefer that North and South Korea get along. Better yet, that the country have one government. One run by sane people, who had some sort of checks and balances to keep them from being too irresponsible.

While I'm wishing, I'd prefer that America's checks and balances worked. And that's yet another topic, sort of.

This isn't a perfect world, so North Korea is run by Dear Leader, who seems to be arranging for his son to take over. South Korea is run by a President, a National Assembly, and a Supreme Court.

North Korea has a billion-dollar economy which produces armaments, textiles, and agricultural products, among other things.

South Korea has a trillion-dollar economy, making electronics, cars, and ships - also music videos and various consumer products. (CIA World Factbook, "Korea, South" (last updated November 17, 2010)"Korea, North" (last updated November 9, 2010))

I think the radical differences between the two halves of Korea are due mostly to the style of leadership on each side - but that's my opinion. Dear Leader's take is that the half of the country he doesn't control is the "South Korean puppet group." (November 23, 2010)
'I Predict' - Something Will Happen
As for 'what next?' That's a good question: but I really don't know.

The most recent attacks could be another case of bad behavior, followed by demands for concessions. If Dear Leader was younger, I'd probably think he probably just wanted more lobster, or maybe a special seat at the United Nations.

What troubles me is Kim Jong Il's age, and what appear to be his efforts at setting up his son to be the next warlord. When Kim Jong Il dies: well, the death of a warlord has sometimes set off quite a scramble among the folks who want the position. This lot has nuclear weapons, and missiles that can reach quite a few countries bordering the Pacific.

One of the wannabes might get the idea that incinerating, say, Tokyo, Vladivostok, or Seoul, was a good way to show determination. Or someone in North Korea might start believing their own propaganda. Again, my opinion.

On the other hand, the government in Seoul might get a telephone call tomorrow, from Pyongyang - collect - saying: 'sorry about that: it was all a big misunderstanding, it's a mess here, and we'd like you to take over now.'

I really don't think that'll happen.

Afghanistan

"Obama in Afghanistan, U.S. to release war review soon"
Caren Bohan, Reuters Edition: U.S. (December 3, 2010)

"President Barack Obama visited Afghanistan on Friday but bad weather kept him on a U.S. military base and forced him to cancel a planned face-to-face meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"Obama was due to speak with Karzai by phone from Bagram Air Base outside the capital, U.S. officials said. They previously hoped to set up a secure videophone line but weather and technical difficulties prevented that.

"The trip, the second to Afghanistan of Obama's presidency, comes as the White House prepares to release a review of the war strategy the week of December 13.

"It will assess and potentially recommend changes to the strategy Obama rolled out a year ago when he ordered 30,000 additional U.S. troops to that war zone.

"Obama is under pressure to show progress in the increasingly unpopular nine-year-old war and the visit is a chance for a first-hand assessment...."
I've said it before: 'It's different, when you're in charge.'

Let's remember that Afghanistan was run by the Taliban, 1996-2001, and had a series of civil wars before that. The country is not in great shape. (CIA World Factbook, "Afghanistan" (last updated November 22, 2010))

Whatever the president of the United States says, week after next, it's going to be criticized. I'm no great fan of the current president, but I'm waiting until I see what the man has to say, before commenting on it.

And, if there's an unfavorable fluff-to-content ratio, I may not comment at all. Moving on.

Ivory Coast, Africa

"Ivory Coast poll overturned: Gbagbo declared winner"
BBC News Africa (December 3, 2010)

"Ivory Coast's Constitutional Council has overturned earlier poll results and declared President Laurent Gbagbo the winner of Sunday's run-off.

"On Thursday the electoral commission head said opposition candidate Alassane Ouattara had defeated Mr Gbagbo.

"But the Constitutional Council chairman said results in seven regions in the north, where Mr Ouattara draws most of his support, had been annulled.

"The poll was intended to reunify the nation after a civil war in 2002.

"Paul Yao N'Dre, chairman of the Constitutional Council which validates election results, said Mr Gbagbo had won a little more than 51% of the vote.

"The head of the electoral commission had said Mr Gbagbo won 46% of ballots cast....

"...On Thursday evening, the military closed the country's borders and international news sources were suspended...."
Okay. This sounds familiar.
  • 'Elected' leader stages election
  • 'Wrong' candidate wins
  • Ballots for 'wrong' candidate declared invalid
  • 'Elected' leader's enforcers
    • Close borders
    • Shut down news
No bragging about how that could never happen in this country. I live in Minnesota. 'Nuff said. This isn't a 'political' blog.

If "Ivory Coast" doesn't sound familiar, you may know the country as Cote d'Ivoire. (CIA World Factbook) Cote d'Ivoire is in better shape than Somalia: but most countries are.

About the recent election, Laurent Gbagbo's folks may be right - there might be legitimate reasons for throwing out ballots from areas that supported the other fellow. A point in Gbagbo's favor, given my biases, is that the 'official' count is around 51% - not the 99%, give-or-take, that some folks presumably got. Officially.

So, what does this election SNAFU have to do with the war on terror?

Directly, not all that much.

Indirectly, Cote d'Ivoire is a pretty good example of how countries aren't all alike.

For example, part of Cote d'Ivoire's economy involves what's politely termed "trafficking in persons." Illegal immigrants occasionally show up on the domestic staff of American political leaders - and folks breaking into this country are a hot-button issue. But forced servitude isn't - really - a significant part of America's economy. The opinions of a few college professors and terribly earnest folks notwithstanding.

The idea that people are commodities that can be bought and sold is not a good fit with the ideals of personal freedom that quite a few folks in America and Western civilization at least pay lip-service to.

I've made the point before: Islam is at least as diverse as Protestant Christianity. Muslims seem to have an extremely wide range of beliefs, based in part on local and regional cultures. Islam is not some monolithic block of Osama bin Laden clones.

However, the local/regional flavors of Islam often tolerate quaint customs. Like forced servitude. It's not called that - not in polite society, anyway. But the folks whose leaders are sitting on the heart of Islam import "...workers from South and Southeast Asia who are subjected to conditions that constitute involuntary servitude including being subjected to physical and sexual abuse, non-payment of wages, confinement, and withholding of passports as a restriction on their movement...." (CIA World Factbook, "Saudi Arabia" (last updated November 9, 2010))

'The war on terror' isn't a war on Islam. But outfits like the Taliban and Al Qaeda have attitudes and beliefs that aren't all that unlike those of the Saudi upper crust. Those beliefs aren't a good fit - at all - with the way Americans, and folks in Western countries generally, have gotten used to living.

Folks living in Cote d'Ivoire, by the way, are about 1/3 Muslim, 1/3 Christian, and 1/3 something else. And I'm not trying to say that Islam causes slavery. Cultures that Islam appears in these days? That's yet again another topic.

Related posts:

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

British, American Courts: Plodding, Frustrating - But Consider the Alternatives

From today's news:
"Five charged as al Qaeda plotters in U.S. and U.K."
CNN (July 7, 2010)

"The Justice Department announced charges Wednesday against five people who prosecutors say are members of an al Qaeda plot to attack targets in the United States and the United Kingdom.

The charges link a plot against the New York subway system to a scheme to attack a target in the United Kingdom, and say both were directed by 'senior al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan.'...
"
The CNN article shows the sort of concerns that British courts - and, I think, Western courts in general - have. An immigration tribunal decided that one of the men involved, Abid Naseer, is an Al Qaeda agent. He wasn't deported to Pakistan: because he might be tortured there.

Some red-white-and-blue-blooded Americans might say that's being 'soft on criminals.' Maybe so: it's also one of the reasons I sincerely hope Western civilization wins the war on terror. The more rabidly "Islamic" countries, like Iran, are quite definitely not soft on criminals. ("Halt stoning of Iran 'adulterer' - Human Rights Watch," BBC (July 7, 2010))

I put "Islamic" in quotes, since I don't think that outfits like Al Qaeda are any more representative of Muslims and Islam, than the Ku Klux Klan of the fifties and sixties was of Americans and Christianity.

There's a Lesson Here: Several, Actually

First, I think the legal proceedings in today's news show that Al Qaeda and like-minded organizations are
  • Not nice
  • Not safe to have around
  • Nowhere near willing to sit down and chat about living peaceably alongside people aren't just like them
If that sounds patently obvious: you haven't been keeping up with the sillier statements of America's more earnest subcultures.

Second, for all its (many) faults, the sort of judicial system that's been hammered out in the English-speaking world could be worse. A lot worse. Principles like 'innocent until proven guilty' may not feel good all the time: but there's a reason why we're careful (on paper, anyway) about assuming that someone's guilty - and then stringing the varmint up.

Not-entirely-unrelated posts:In the news:

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Mainstream Media, Wikileaks, Reputation and Reality

If you've tried submitting something to Wikileaks, you know what's happened.

If you've given Wikileaks money recently, you may not.

From yesterday's Threat Level (Wired):
"With World Watching, Wikileaks Falls Into Disrepair"
Threat Level, Wired (June 30, 2010)

"...Despite a surge in mostly laudatory media portraying Wikileaks as a fearless, unstoppable outlet for documents that embarrass corporations and overbearing governments, the site has published only 12 documents since the beginning of the year, the last one four months ago. And on June 12, Wikileaks' secure submission page stopped working after the site failed to renew its SSL certificate, a basic web protection that costs less than $30 a year and takes only hours to set up.

"Wikileaks still prominently displays a link on its homepage to a secure submission form for whistleblowers to upload documents. But the page doesn't load. The site's donation page remains reliably available. Wikileaks' head Julian Assange declined to comment...."

Whistle-Blowers, (Traditional) Media, Gatekeepers, and the War on Terror

Conventional wisdom is that plucky girl reporters, idealistic investigative reporters, and determined editors defend the Masses against Big Oil and other oppressor corporations.

Sometimes it works that way. Or worked that way, anyway. Some of those plucky girl reporters have retired by now.

I'm not surprised at the "surge in mostly laudatory media portraying Wikileaks as a fearless, unstoppable outlet for documents that embarrass corporations and overbearing governments."
Credit Where Credit is Due
My hat's off, actually, to the traditional information gatekeepers who looked up from their Underwoods and noticed that the Internet wasn't just a fad.
Whistle-Blowers: Image and Function
Old-school reporters and their editorial counterparts would recognize whistle-blowers as a close analog to the workers who organized in defiance of moneyed interests.

On the whole, I rather approve of whistle-blowers, myself.

Ideally, governments would have a thorough system of checks and balances to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful - and providing a means to correct waste and mismanagement.

Also ideally, businesses would pay attention to what their employees do, so that we wouldn't have disaster plans for the Gulf of Mexico that included caring for indigenous walruses.

Since this is the real world, those ideals aren't always met: which is where whistle-blowers come in.
Wikileaks: I'll Take Your Money, But Not Your Submissions
Wikileaks sounds like a good idea: particularly if it had the sort of verification system that Wikipedia is developing.

Like I said, it sounds like a good idea.

Too bad that whoever's running it decided to let a 30-buck SSL certificate lapse. And isn't fixing the problem.
Wikileaks, Clueless Media, and the War on Terror
The rise and fall of Wikileaks ties in with the War on Terror in a few ways.

First, it's an example of how old-school media just doesn't get it.

This isn't the 20th century any more.

Things happen fast

And, the Masses aren't - in America anyway - the Masses any more. Many - most - of us have Internet connections, know where to get one, or know someone who does.

The Internet is a wonderfully fast, powerful tool for digging up information. Some of the information isn't accurate, some of it's simply wrong, but it's possible to sort through what's there and get a pretty good idea about what's really happening.

Back in the 'good old days,' a few major metropolitan newspapers and the three broadcast networks agreed on what they thought was happening - and that's what just about everybody else would read and hear. It might take weeks, months, before folks who weren't part of the in crowd caught on that reality didn't match what was in the news.

That was then, this is now. These days, the odds are that someone online will pick up information and discuss it before traditional media starts its wheels rolling.

Second, the folks who run "media" are human beings.

Like anybody else, they've got their assumptions.

Folks who don't grow up living inside a power structure whose beliefs they share have many opportunities to learn about 'diversity of opinion' up close and personal.

I think that "media" leaders have not had as many opportunities to learn that every place isn't just like lower Manhattan, the better parts of Los Angeles, or wherever they live.

Which, I think, is why it took so long for traditional news media to wrap their minds around the idea that today's terrorists aren't uneducated, poor folks lashing out against oppressor classes. (July 8, 2007, July 3, 2007)

Human beings make mistakes. Particularly when they've gotten out of the habit of checking on whether or not their assumptions match what's really happening.

Let's remember that "media" was praising Wikileaks - while that service was taking people's money and giving nothing in return.

The same folks are reporting on what they think is happening in the war on terror. I think it's a good idea to take what they say with a grain of salt - and do their fact-checking for them.

Related posts:

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Remembering 9/11, Eight Years Later

Eight years ago tomorrow, airliners struck New York City's World Trade Center, another crashed into the Pentagon while the passengers and crew of Flight 93 kept their airliner from reaching its target.

Two years ago, when I began writing this blog, America was unilaterally going it alone in Iraq, leading more more than two dozen other nations under a United Nations mandate. (June 11, 2008, August 9, 2007)

Today, 105 of the 1,776-foot-tall Freedom Tower is visible - in the form of steel beams and enough concrete to make 100 miles of New York City sidewalks (New York Daily News) About a thousand people took part in a Run to Remember, some of them raising money for charity in the process.

What's Next?

Prediction is a dicey proposition at best, but this seems likely enough:

Two years from now, I expect that America will still be taking military action in Afghanistan. Whether this country will be "going it along" with NATO, or "unilaterally" leading another coalition, I can't guess.

Eight years from now, the focus of the war on terror will likely be elsewhere: maybe Somalia or Sudan; maybe Iran or even Saudi Arabia.

Eighty years from now, the war on terror may be over - but I wouldn't count on it.

Unlike wars between nation-states, the war on terror is against groups of religious zealots who are loosely aligned with each other, and can travel around the world: settling wherever they can find support - willing or otherwise.

There isn't a headquarters to capture or a capital city to occupy; There aren't factories to bomb or, for the most part, permanent bases to attack.

That doesn't mean that this war is unwinnable. It does, I think, mean that it's going to be a slow process of
  • Preventing Islamic crazies from taking control of countries, as the Taliban did with Afghanistan
  • Spotting and stopping efforts to reprise the 9/11 attacks
  • Encouraging people in the Islamic world to at least consider the possibility that the outside world isn't all bad
America has done quite a bit, pursuing that last point, in Iraq: rebuilding hospitals and sewage plants, and helping Iraqis sort out three decades of neglect by Saddam Hussein. (January 11, 2008)

We're Winning

A sustained willingness to use military force is, I think, vital to stopping the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and all the other Islamic fanatics. (Note: That's "Islamic fanatics" - Al Qaeda and the Taliban are at least as much a threat to Muslims as they are to the rest of the world.) However, I also think that some of the important victories in the war on terror won't be military.

Re-building New York City's World Trade Center; remaining a country that people try to break into, not out of; and being willing to lead even if the French government doesn't approve: These things are important.

And, I think that five former American secretaries of state are right. America must lead.

Here's a summary of their advice to the next president:
  • Get real
  • Be smart
  • The world is a complicated place
  • America has to lead
  • Play down the ideology
  • Approach the world
    • Rationally
    • With perspective
    (September 23, 2008)
I don't think the five former secretaries of state were spot-on in every detail: but I think they had the right idea.

This country isn't perfect, but it's the only nation on Earth with the tradition of freedom, the military forces, and the willingness to act, that's needed to get past discussions of agendas and resolutions.

Related posts: In the news: Background:

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Truck Bomb Kills Five! (oh, and Iraqi Prime Minister Pledges No Retreat)

The headline is familiar enough: "Truck bomb kills at least 5 in northern Iraq." The attack was near a Shiite mosque, after noon prayers, south of Kirkuk.

Five paragraphs of that standard-issue bit of news pushed something else down the page:
"...THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's prime minister says the withdrawal of U.S. troops from urban areas by the end of this month will be a 'big victory' for the nation....
" (AP)
Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, acknowledged that terrorists ("millitants," in AP-speak) will stage more attacks. My guess is that he didn't realize how little time that would take. But never mind.

Al-Maliki also said that Iraq wouldn't let the attacks turn back the clock on Iraq's security. says militants will try to stage more attacks but Iraqi security forces won't let them reverse security gains.

I see his "...'we will not retreat no matter what happens.'..." (AP) as more of a statement of intent than certain knowledge: but I also think it is a good sign.

As I wrote earlier this year (February 15, 2009), Iraq is acting like an independent country. I think it's very near time to say, "mission accomplished."

Related posts: In the news:

Monday, May 18, 2009

Waging an Overseas Contingency Operation Against Alternatively-Peaceful Ideologues??

I suppose that "overseas contingency operation" does sound nicer that "war on terror."

The phrase, "war on terror," sounds so, well warlike.

I think I understand why President Obama was so eager to end the war - or at least the word - as quickly and quietly as possible. Code Pink isn't entirely representative of his party's views, but quite a few of his supporters seemed to be peaceniks.

Pleasing Supporters and Staying Alive: No Easy Task

President Obama seems to be in the unenviable position of wanting to demonstrate that he is utterly unlike the 'diabolical' President Bush: while acting to ensure that America is around for his re-election.

So far, he's stepping up his 'unilateral' attack on Afghanistan. (Notice how America isn't acting 'unilaterally' any more?) What he'll do about prisoners at Guantanamo is still up in the air: but at least he didn't immediately released them.

There's a good chance that President Obama will remember that the prisoners at the Guantanamo facility are there because they were (almost certainly) trying to kill Americans and other people who weren't on their imam's 'preferred' list.

Aside from a few unscripted gaffes, like Obama's remarks about the natives of inner Pennsylvania, Barack Obama has struck me as charming, charismatic, and smart. There's no reason to believe that he would intentionally destroy the nation that's given him his current position.

I think that President Obama is aware that leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the Ayatollahs of Iran, and other people who are responsible for "man-caused disasters," are not nice. I also think he's sharp enough to realize that saying nice things doesn't always make nice things happen.

At least, I hope so.

Related posts: News and views:
Background:

Excerpt from "The End of the U.S. War On Terror" (Journal of the Turkish Weekly (May 8, 2009))

"Do you remember where you were the day the 'global war on terror' ended?

"Like most people, you probably didn't even notice that it had. And that may be because the 'war' didn't end the way the man who started it -- former U.S. President George W. Bush -- often predicted it would: with 'complete victory' in the 'great struggle between the forces of freedom and the forces of terror.'

"It ended with an e-mail, sent under a new administration led by President Barack Obama.

"Sometime during the week of March 25, the government agency that reviews the public statements of administration officials before they're disseminated sent an e-mail to employees of the U.S. Defense Department. The e-mail read: 'This administration prefers to avoid using the term "long war" or "global war on terror." Please use "Overseas Contingency Operation." '

"It added, 'Please pass this on to your speechwriters.'

"At first the White House denied that an across-the-board decision had been made to banish the old language and introduce the new phrase, but a few days later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed to reporters that 'war on terror' is not how anyone who works for President Obama will be describing U.S. policy, either at home or abroad.

"Clinton said, 'The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself.'

"Obama himself hasn't said anything about the change, but while he was still a candidate for president, he made it clear that in an Obama White House, the language of diplomacy would replace the language of force.

" 'After eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time, I believe, to pursue direct diplomacy with friend and foe alike without preconditions,' Obama said in May 2008...."

Monday, March 30, 2009

No More "War on Terror" - Officially?

"Obama team drops 'war on terror' rhetoric"
Reuters (March 30, 2009)

"THE HAGUE (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday the Obama administration had dropped "war on terror" from its lexicon, rhetoric former President George W. Bush used to justify many of his actions.

" 'The (Obama) administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself. Obviously,' Clinton told reporters traveling with her to The Hague for a conference on Afghanistan, which Bush called part of his "global war on terror.'..."

That's the gist of the article, and all the others I read.

I believe it. President Obama promised change: and dropping a divisive term like "war on terror" is certainly a change.

I'm quite confident that President Obama's administration will be much nicer, more conciliatory, open, understanding, and caring than the "diabolical" George W. Bush's administration was.

Words, Actions, and Common Sense

I am one of those people who are convinced that words have meanings, and that it matters: what words are used.

Clinton and Obama notwithstanding, I'm keeping the name of this blog: on the practical side, it'd be a big fuss to start with a new name, and you might have trouble finding this blog; on the philosophical side, I think it's a mistake to pretend that a war isn't a war.

What's going on now, between outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and everyone they don't approve of - the West included - is a war. It's not like the wars that were fought in Aristotle's time, or the conflicts of the twentieth century, but it's still a war. Even if only one side admits it.
'Defense Department'?!
If I remember correctly, America had a 'United States Department of War' from its very early years, until 1947. Then, since 'war was no longer possible,' as a character in a sixties show (Ironside, I think), it became the 'Department of Defense.'

I think that giving the Department of War a 'nicer' name may have been a mistake. It's true, the American department of war's purpose is to defend America. But, in their own way, that's a function of the State Department, and all the other federal departments.

The 'Department of Defense' defends America by being prepared to wage war: and, on occasion, waging war. That's not nice, I'll agree: but this world isn't particularly nice. And, like it or not, we all live in the real world.
No More "War on Terror"?
Maybe the Obama administration has a grand plan for preventing religious maniacs from doing a re-play of the 9/11 attack. I sincerely hope so.

I also hope that President Obama does not believe that the leaders of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and like-minded people, will stop being mean if America stops being mean. There's very little evidence to support the notion that, deep down inside, Osama bin Laden is a nice guy who just wants to get along.

More-or-less related posts: News and Views:

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Change in Homeland Security: Don't Worry, Be Happy

Michael Chertoff isn't running Homeland Security any more. I'm sure that some Americans will find this a great relief. The Associated Press points out that he "used law enforcement and military jargon — 'intelligence,' 'analysis,' 'mission' — to describe the agency's objectives."

Such harsh, confrontational language. Mr. Chertoff talked as if there was a war on: which, unhappily, there is.

Now, Americans have Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security Secretary. The good news is that she realizes that her department is supposed to help Americans:

"The department's mission is straightforward, she says in her prepared testimony: 'To protect the American people from threats both foreign and domestic, both natural and manmade — to do all that we can to prevent threats from materializing, respond to them if they do and recover with resiliency.' "

It was a bit of a relief to see the phrase "and manmade" in her remarks.

The lead paragraphs of The Associated Press's article on Obama's new-and-improved Homeland Security suggested that America's government was going to try a policy of outreach and reconciliation with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other (misunderstood advocacy groups?).

Four More Years: Being Nice Sounds - Nice

America hasn't been successfully attacked since September 11, 2001. Since 9/11, America's government has been acting as if there was a war on. Which, considering what happened on the south side of Manhattan, there arguably is.

Not all Americans have been happy about that. War is not nice: people get hurt and killed; and it distracts the masses from what they feel are more important matters.

Me, I think it would be nice if Al Qaeda didn't want to kill Americans.

But, as I pointed out in another post:

"Al Qaeda has a rather well-defined goal: 'to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems 'non-Islamic' and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries.' (GlobalSecuricty.org)

"...In February of 1998, Al Qaeda said that 'it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens—civilian or military—and their allies everywhere.' (GlobalSecuricty.org)"

No matter how much American leaders avoid saying "war" and "terrorism," Al Qaeda is very unlikely to change its mind about its basic goals. I doubt that the Taliban will become more inclusive and tolerant, either.

Sometimes Being Nice Isn't Enough

I sincerely hope that Napolitano's seemingly-conciliatory tone is mostly for domestic consumption, that the current administration is willing to be unpleasant, if necessary, to stop another attack - and that terrorists don't assume that America has let its guard down.

I insist on being hopeful. And, no matter what happens, the next four years are going to be interesting.

Change, in the news:
  • "No terror talk: Homeland Security head's new tone"
    The Associated Press (February 24, 2009)
    • "WASHINGTON (AP) — Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano avoids mention of terrorism or 9/11 in remarks prepared for her first congressional testimony since taking office, signaling a sharp change in tone from her predecessors.
    • "Napolitano is the first homeland security secretary to drop the term 'terror' and 'vulnerability' from remarks prepared for delivery to the House Homeland Security Committee, according to a copy obtained by The Associated Press...."
  • "Homeland chief orders gulf coast recovery review"
    The Associated Press (February 24, 2009)
    • "WASHINGTON (AP) — In one of her first moves as Homeland Security secretary, Janet Napolitano has ordered a fresh review of hurricane recovery efforts in the gulf coast 3 1/2 years after two killer hurricanes swept ashore.
    • "In testimony prepared for a congressional hearing Wednesday, Napolitano said the Federal Emergency Management Agency will assign a new team of senior staff members to look at ways to improve hurricane recovery operations that have been under way since hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. The Associated Press obtained an advance copy of her testimony...."

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Obama Backs Bush Policy, Guantanamo up to Geneva Convention Standards: It's Different, When You're in Charge

This is a dark day for people who see Code Pink as a group of centrist moderates, and agree with professor Churchill's views on American guilt.

Guantanamo Prison Humane, Pentagon Recommends More Prayer and Group Recreation

Human rights groups aren't happy with the report President Obama ordered last month, about the appalling, degrading, awful, disgusting, terrible, brutal - - - you get the idea - - - conditions that an oppressive regime forces Islamic activists to endure at Guantanamo.

The Pentagon came up with the wrong answers.

The report apparently found that conditions at Guantanamo were humane, according to Geneva Convention standards. America's military did have some recommendations, though. Particularly troublesome prisoners should get more time for prayer, and for group recreation.

As the Los Angeles Times put it, "Rights groups criticize the findings." (LAT)

Bagram Airfield Detainees: Obama Confirms Bush Policy

President Barack Obama's administration made an important decision: Detainees at Bagram Airfield, in Afghanistan, don't have the same rights as American citizens.

They can't use American courts to challenge their detention.

That policy was set during the Bush administration: part of President Bush's efforts to wage a successful war on terror.

This didn't go down very well in some quarters.

" 'The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped,' said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. 'We all expected better.' " (AP)

My reaction is "I had feared worse."

But, I had hoped that Barack Obama, once he was at sitting at the desk where the buck stops, would behave responsibly.

America is at war, and although it's important to live up to this country's high standards: It's also prudent to remember who's trying to bring down the country: rights groups, human rights attorneys and all.

Things tend to look different, when you're the one in charge.

More or less related posts: In the news:

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Iraqi Government Boots Blackwater: Another 'Mission Accomplished'

Blackwater Security is back in the news: and the killings in Baghdad's Nisoor Square aren't forgotten.

People who may think that Code Pink has a centrist philosophy, feel that wars would end if America was nice, and opine about the "Right Wing Christian Dynasty," aren't likely to let Blackwater go. What Blackwater security's employees did was a wonderful propaganda tool for them: a concrete example of what they seem to fear more than the Taliban.

Blackwater Guards on Trial

The American judicial system hasn't forgotten, either. Guards involved in the 2007 Nisoor Square killings were charged earlier this month. "...Each of the former guards has been charged with 14 counts of manslaughter, 20 counts of attempted manslaughter and one count of using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime...." (CNN)

Manslaughter. That's "homicide without malice aforethought." (WordNet) I think I see the point. Apparently there isn't enough evidence to show that the nitwits planned to kill somebody. It's not emotionally satisfying, but it is still a serious charge.

I'm not as certain now, as I was in 2007, that the case should be tried by an Iraqi court. It still seems like a good idea: Iraq is a sovereign country, the offense was committed in Iraq, against Iraqi citizens. But, the India-Pakistan-Mumbai situation has given me more to think about, when it comes to international criminal cases, and I'm not even close to making up my mind.

I'm just glad that I'm not responsible for deciding where the case gets tried.
Strange Justice
A problem I have, when thinking about American courts, is that I started being aware of how the American judicial system works in the sixties. What I learned - from sources which often had a favorable view of American courts and their efforts to change society - about the weird decisions and views on social engineering from the bench appalled me. At best, I have reservations about the ability of an American court to stay glued to the space-time continuum.

Iraq to America: Find Another Security Firm

Blackwater Worldwide seems to be definitely out of Iraq now. American diplomats will have to find another company to provide protection.

Iraq's Major Geneneral Abdul-Karim Khalaf spoke for the Interior Ministry: " 'We sent our decision to the U.S. Embassy last Friday,' Khalaf told The Associated Press in a phone interview. 'They have to find a new security company.' " (AP)

Sounds reasonable. Reputation is important, and Blackwater's reputation in Iraq isn't good at all. Even if Blackwater as a company was blameless in Nasoor Square killings (stay calm, keep reading), the Iraqi government would want Blackwater out: just as a matter of public relations. As it is, I can't help but think that something went horribly wrong in Blackwater hiring or management practices - maybe both.

And, Iraq isn't blacklisting all Blackwater employees. If someone worked for Blackwater and wasn't involved in what happened in Nasoor Square, they can apply for a job at another security company.

It's "Mission Accomplished" - and Will be for Generations

Iraq's a sovereign nation. It's government is negotiating with the American government, sorting out how the two countries will be handling diplomatic security - and whatever else needs to be dealt with .

There's still a lot of work to be done, catching up on three decades of neglect under Hussein's mis-management: and repairing what happens when a homicidal dictator won't give up, and religious crazies try purifying a country with swords and truck bombs. I think Iraq will be willing to let America help.

America's got a pretty good track record, that way: one reason that Anti-American demonstrators in Japan and Germany, for example, have the resources to express their opinion is what America did after WWII, to help the countries get back on their feet.
"Mission Accomplished?" Never
What some might see as the Iraqi government throwing its weight around is, I think, evidence that America - and the coalition - can claim "mission accomplished" for one phase of the War on Terror's Iraqi front. A brutal dictator is gone, and Iraq is going about the messy business of establishing what I hope and believe will be a prosperous, free, country.

There's much more to do, and I'll be surprised if America isn't involved in matters of trade, security, and diplomacy with Iraq for for generations. The way I see it, that's part of the 'mission' too: making it possible for Iraq and other countries to prosper.

Iraq won't be a "western democracy." Iraq isn't, except maybe from the Chinese point of view, a "western" country. But, I think that Iraq will be a country whose government and economy favors good sense, rather than terrorism.

Good enough for me.

Related posts: News and views:

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Piracy and the War on Terror

As I discussed in a previous post, today's piracy and terrorism seem to be related.

To make the "piracy posts" a little easier to find, I've started this list:

Friday, November 14, 2008

CIA Says Osama bin Laden Isolated: Can Everybody Go Home Now?

It's in the news: Osama bin Laden is isolated. He's not actually running Al Qaeda now.

Does this mean that all the troops can go home now? From what some very intelligent (just ask them) people say, maybe they can. And should:
  • Osama bin Laden is really important
  • He's the one to blame for 9/11
  • Anything not obviously focused on serving Osama bin Laden with an arrest warrant is a mistake
    • And the fault of George W. Bush
Me? I think that there's more going on than Osama bin Laden and his vision for Islam. And, I don't see response to the 9/11 attack as something that should be handled by law enforcement. Neither do many others, now, from what I've heard and read.

Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the War on Terror: It's Not Over Yet

My guess is that we're still closer to the beginning of the War on Terror, than its end.

I'm not being pessimistic: but this conflict is not like the major global wars of the 20th century, where there American and other nations were facing an enemy with a well-defined territory, combatants who were, by and large, readily identifiable, and headquarters that could be seized.

The War on Terror is going to take time.

Here's a bit of what CIA Director Michael Hayden said about Osama bin Laden, as reported on CNN:
  • " 'He is putting a lot of energy into his own survival -- a lot of energy into his own security,' ...
    " 'In fact, he appears to be largely isolated from the day-to-day operations of the organization he nominally heads....'"
  • "...'Al Qaeda has suffered serious setbacks, but it remains a determined, adaptive enemy unlike any our nation has ever faced,' Hayden said. 'The war is far from over.' "
  • " 'This is an organization that has never been through a change at the top,' he said. 'For 20 years, bin Laden has been the visionary, the inspiration or harmonizing force behind al Qaeda....' "
Would capturing or killing bin Laden be good for people who aren't with Al Qaeda? Almost certainly, yes.

Is Osama bin Laden the only target in the War on Terror? Definitely not.

Am I disheartened at how long the War on Terror has been going on?

No: but then, I'm a historian. I recognize that the War on Terror isn't a matter of one nation attacking another, or even a war between many nations. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are going to be very, very, difficult to overcome.

But, I think that the strange vision of Islam that bin Laden and some others have will not win. As I've written before, there are Muslims who do not see eye-to-eye with the likes of Al Qaeda. And, even in the Middle East, some Muslims are starting to question their more enthusiastic leaders (see "Chief Saudi Judge: Death to Network Owners!" (September 19, 2008)).

In the news:

Monday, November 10, 2008

Bush Administration Secret Orders Revealed: No Hiding Place for Al Qaeda

It's been open season on Al Qaeda for units of the American military, since 2004. Setting up bases in countries that are "not at war with the United States" (NYT) didn't put them off-limits. Stepping across a national border, killing people, then stepping back and going 'neener, neener' didn't work.

It must have been frustrating for Al Qaeda leaders.

I can't say that I'm disappointed to learn that then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed an order that gave the American military "broad, secret authority" to go after Al Qaeda. And, that the 'demonic' George Bush approved.

Secret Orders, Broad Authority: Is This Some Kind of Plot?

Well, yes. It is. It looks like the Bush administration has, since around September of 2001, been out to get Al Qaeda.

Just because of some incident involving four airliners, two skyscrapers, the Pentagon, a field in Pennsylvania and several thousand people: many of whom left pieces big enough to be identified.

Secret Orders! The Horror! The Horror!

I'm all for dialog and transparency, but let's be realistic: Al Qaeda wants to destroy western culture, and seems particularly focused on American culture and institutions.

Quite a few Americans would just as soon keep things more or less the way they are.1 And, more to the point, would just as soon not be killed by religious fanatics.

Al Qaeda leaders can hardly overthrow America if their organization is knocked to pieces. And, I'm pretty sure that Al Qaeda's leaders would just as soon stay alive. They're remarkably generous about letting their underlings become holy martyrs, but not so eager themselves.

Under those circumstances, it simply does not make sense to go through the usual diplomatic channels, engage in dialog, and be transparent. Let's say that, before going after a base in Syria that Al Qaeda is using to kill Iraqis, American officials engage in dialog with:
  • Syrian officials
  • The United Nations Security Council
  • Leaders of
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Jordan
    • Lebanon
    • Turkey
    • Iran
    • Kuwait
    • The United Arab Emirates
    • Oman
    • Yemen
    • Eritrea
    • Sudan
    • And, just to be thorough, Brunei
I could be wrong, but I think that by the time a consensus was reached, Al Qaida would have moved the base somewhere else. And the whole transparent dialog could start over.

That Was the Bush Administration: Now What?

Whether or not the Obama administration continues this 'no hiding place' Al Qaeda policy will, I think, tell us a lot about what to expect in the next four to eight years.

I hope that Barack Obama will risk offending President Ahmadinejad, Code Pink, and Bare Witness: and be practical about the War on Terror.

Related post: In the news:
1 I'm no great fan of the America of Madison Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard myself, but knocking down buildings with people inside is not a sensible response.

A Catholic Citizen in America (Following Catholic beliefs and practices in America: One man's experience) discusses my counter-cultural lifestyle in today's America, and how I respond to the culture around me.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

The Marines Blew Up the Islamabad Marriott!

No, not really. But it looks like we'll be hearing that they're to blame.

Few things are simple, and Saturday's attack on the Islamabad Marriott hotel is no exception.

Just the Facts: And Innuendo

You've probably heard that the Marriott in Islamabad burned after a truck bomb attack last Saturday.

You may even have heard that it's America's fault. More specifically, it's the fault of the Marines.

Sure, the Anjuman Fidayeen-e-Islam, or The Fedayeen of Islam, a bunch that nobody seems to have heard of before, say they did it. But it was the fault of the Marines. Or America.

That seems to be the implication of an article in Prensa Latina, published today.

They could be right. I don't doubt the facts, as stated:
  • "...The case emerged when Representative Mumtaz Alam Gilani denounced a mysterious and secret movement last Wednesday night by US Marines who supposedly were introducing iron boxes without being checked by security personnel of the hotel
  • "This happened after the Chief of US Troops, Admiral Mike Fullen, had a meeting in Islamabad with the country's main military chiefs.
  • "In a statement, the US embassy insists today that it was a support team that usually precedes or accompanies American authorities.
  • "The News reports, however, that the government already had information that various rooms on the fourth floor of the Marriott were permanently occupied by US authorities and had equipment and other material used for espionage...."
("Mystery Shrouds Pakistan Iron Boxes" (Prensa Latina (September 23, 2008))

As I see it, Prensa Latina's facts are
  • Marines "supposedly" carried boxes into the Marriott without having the house detectives look inside
  • An unusually anonymous source in "the government" says that there's a nest of foreign (American, in this case) spies in the hotel
  • Some time after the Marines took the boxes into the hotel, a truck blew up at the gate
  • Then the hotel burned down
My hat's off to Prensa Latina, for the way they wrote the article. Specifying that the containers were iron boxes conjured visions of Fu Manchu-style intrigue, Humphrey Bogart movies, even secret pirate treasure.

It could be pure coincidence that the mailing address for Prensa Latina gives is "Calle 23 esq. N Vedado, La Habana - Cuba," but I think that Prensa Latina might have a well-defined editorial slant regarding America.

Good Guys, Bad Guys, and Everyone In Between

Secret agents and mysterious iron boxes aside, there's quite a great deal of uncertainty about Saturday's explosion.

One of the few things that are known is that it was a big explosion, a big fire, and that a lot of people got killed. Over four dozen, at least. One Pakistani official called it the biggest attack in seven years.

At best, I think it'll be years before we know who actually sent some suicide driver in that truck. The modus operandi suggests Taliban and/or Al Qaeda: both of which have reasonably secure bases in the tribal regions of Pakistan. But methods can be copied, so it's anyone's guess who is responsible.

According to CNN, Al-Arabiya TV reported that it, Al-Arabiya, got an audio recording from some groups calling itself "The Fedayeen of Islam," but noted that it, Al-Arabiya, couldn't tell if the recording was the real McCoy, or if the name of the group was for real.

Assuming that CNN's coverage of Al-Arabiya's reporting of a previously-unknown group's audio recording is accurate:
  • The Fedayeen of Islam say that 250 U.S. Marines and other U.S. and NATO officials were inside the hotel when it burned
  • The Fedayeen of Islam 'regretted the attack,' but that it was necessary - They've got demands
    • American-Pakistani joint efforts must end
    • All military operations in Pakistan's tribal regions must end
    • There's more, but CNN didn't go into that
    • "Mujahadeen" prisoners in American prisons must be released
CNN said that it "cannot independently verify the claim."

So far, we've got mysterious iron boxes, a claim of responsibility from an unknown organization that demands the release of prisoners that nobody else seems to know about. All the story needs now is the possibility that high-level Pakistani officials knew about the attack before it happened.
Dinner Plans, or No Dinner Plans: That is the Question
One of the questions, anyway.

Pakistan's Interior Ministry head, Rehman Malik, said that Pakistan's president, prime minister and other leaders had planned to dine at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad on Saturday night. Then, President Asif Ali Zardari asked to move the event to the prime minister's compound.

Which was a good thing for President Zardari. If he'd been at the Marriott, he'd most likely be as dead as the Czech Ambassador, Ivo Zdarek.

The hotel management, on the other hand, insists that there were no dinner plans, changed or otherwise, for the Pakistani officials at the Marriott. And Pakistani Senator Javed Ashraf Qazi said he was invited to the dinner but it was always scheduled to be at the prime minister's office. Which could be true.

Even the professional and cautious CNN wrote that the lack of fit between the stories of the Pakistani Interior Ministry chief, a Pakistani senator, and the Marriott management "raised questions as to how much the government knew about the planned attack...."

Since the person who said 'plans were changed' was named, and since Rehman Malik is Pakistan's Interior Ministry head, I think there's a chance that plans were changed: possibly for innocent reasons. Innocent or not, if Senator Javed Ashraf Qazi's assertion isn't accurate, there's a whacking great coincidence here, at the very least.
With Friends Like These -
Like Yemen, Pakistan is an ally of America. With Al Qaeda and Taliban bases operating within its borders.

Pakistan either can't or won't remove those bases.

And, Pakistan's government doesn't want any help. Last week, we heard that a Pakistani leader gave Pakistan's troops orders to shoot America soldiers if they tried to deal with Al Qaeda or Taliban forces inside Pakistan.

On the other hand, maybe they didn't. Some Pakistani officials said it wasn't so.

Now, the Associated Press is saying that two American intelligence officials reported Pakistani troops and tribesmen shooting at American helicopters inside Pakistan. And, that the Pentagon said it wasn't so.
Looking for Certainty? Read a Spy Novel
As I said about another issue, "If you're not a bit confused...you're not paying attention."

Good guys? Bad guys? It isn't that simple. We've got a situation where
  • National leaders in the Middle East are dealing with people living within their territory who don't like the idea of nations - and have the firepower to be more than annoying
  • Terrorists (or activists, or whatever you want to call them) are as hard to keep track of as mercury that's been hit with a hammer - They
    • Aren't tied to one territory, as nations are
    • May have the support of people who think that Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and similar groups
      • Are defending Islam
      • Deserve support, based on tribal loyalties
    • May dissolve and re-form under new names
  • Conflicting accounts are broadcast around the world before bureaucracies get facts through 'regular channels' and decide what to say
  • News organizations, from The New York Times and Prensa Latina to CNN, are dealing with a world that doesn't fit their Cold War templates
And that's just scratching the surface.

Oh the other hand, although there probably aren't (purely) good guys and (purely) bad guys, I think there are (fairly) good sides and (decidedly) bad sides.

Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranian regime, and other like-minded organizations, do seem to have a clear idea of what they want: a world that's run much more tidily, and according to their rules.

The burqa-yes, trouser-no dress code alone would hard for westerners to live with. Never mind what would happen to the status of women, and anyone who didn't see eye-to-eye with the local imam.

Americans, and quite a few other people, have gotten used to living with a degree of personal freedom that doesn't seem to be part of Al Qaeda's dream.

We won't find perfectly good guys in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, or America. But I think there are people who are willing to keep followers of Osama bin Laden and Iran's ayatollahs from replacing the bikini with the burqa, and turning the clock back to the good old days, when the local despot had life-and-death control over his subjects.

In the news:

"Video emerges of Marriott bombing - 21 Sept 08"
YouTube video
video (1:49)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind 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.