So Much To Blog, So Little Time

There are numerous fascinating posts out over the past few days that I have wanted to blog but have just run out of time. Here they are:

PJM:  Michael Ledeen provides a reminder - totalitarianism must win out or be defeated.  There is no middle ground.  He puts it in terms of Iran, but I think it equally as applicable to the insane idea of negotiating with the Taliban.

That’s no doubt the “deep down” reason why Obama worked so hard — indeed is still secretly working hard — to get his version of the Hitler/Stalin pact with Iran. Somebody ought to remind Obama how that great triumph of totalitarian diplomacy worked out for the two of them.

Big Lizards has some additional cogent thoughts on the Obama decision to negotiate with the Taliban.

NRO:  Real capitalism exists only in Communist China - - - well, the special district of Hong Kong, where limited government, a laughably simple tax code, and no major regulatory regime to speak of stand in direct contrast to the U.S.  How would we like to see Hong Kong's near 6% growth this year.

The Daily Gator:  A rogues gallery of the Top Ten Lunatic Fringe Ron Paul Supporters.  Paul almost makes Obama's choice of associations look benign.

PJM:  Spengler puts "private equity and creative destruction" into context, taking Gingrich and Perry rightfully to task.  Theirs is an attack from the left on capitalism - and I say that as one who would much prefer to see Gingrich in the White House than Romney:

Want to see what America would look like without private equity? Move to Detroit and contemplate the ruins of a city ruined by the placid conformity of auto industry executives. The economic impact of the corporate takeover business can’t be measured by the outcome of takeovers as such. Private equity transformed the way American business thought about the world.

Across The Fence:  Mark Meckler, of Tea Party fame, discusses his arrest in NYC for possession of a firearm (unloaded, in a case in his luggage, for which he had a valid permit) after he tried to declare it before boarding a plane at LaGuardia airport.  NYC ultimately dropped the charges, but is refusing now to return his gun.  It is all a Constitutional travesty.

PJM:  Kevin Martin discusses the dissatisfaction of progressive blacks with Obama

Belafonte and others would be hard pressed to find anyone in the black community who could claim they are better off today than they were 3 years ago.

That goes hand in glove with my post the other day, that now is the time for conservatives to make a real push for the black vote.  If we can convince 1 in 10 of the reality - that "on the two most important issues facing blacks today, jobs and education, their best hopes lay with the right," then the Democrats will be put in dire straits.

NRO:  Five Muslims have been arrested in the UK and charged with violating a new hate speech law for stating in a leaflet that gays will go to hell and should receive the death penalty.

The passage of the law, and its first use this week, is the continuation of a worrying trend in the United Kingdom. Laws governing thought and speech, rather than deed, are becoming commonplace. . . . Worse, it cripples free expression and leaves people looking over their shoulders.

The UK, from which the concept of freedom of speech springs, has taken a worrying turn against it since the 1980's - to the extent that I find myself today, for the first time, coming down on the side of the radical Muzzies.

Ironic Surrealism:  Obnoxious, hypocritical, outrageous . . . . are just a few of the adjectives one could quite legitimately apply to the DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who has once again tried to blame the Tea Party for the shooting of Congresswoman  Gabrielle Giffords.  What a detestable woman.

Got Medieval:  If you like the legend of King Arthur, GM provides some of the fascinating backstory of the legend's author, Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Woman Honor Thyself: Gender confusion [shiver] is being foisted on us by "lefties and Hollywood bozos:"

The underlying and not so subtle aim is to blur and haze the line between men and womens’wear, thus blurring the line between men and women period.

Read More...

Summary only...

Last Week's Suicide Bomb Attack Against CIA In Afghanistan Gets Even More Ominous

The suicide bombing at CIA camp in Afghanistan on 31 December killed seven of our intelligence operatives, a Jordian intelligence official who was also a member of the royal family, and injured several others. The CIA officers killed were very experienced officers whose loss, tragic in human terms, is also a severe blow to our intelligence operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

We now know that the suicide bomber, Humam Khalil Mohammed, aka Abu Dujanah al-Khorasani, was a physician, a prolific and vitriolic jihadi cyber activist, and a double agent, apparently for the Taliban. He made a "martyrdom video" in the month prior to his death:



There is also a disturbing report suggesting that elements of Pakistan's Intelligence Service, ISI, may have had a hand in this mass murder:

Early evidence in the December 30 bombing that killed seven CIA agents suggests a link to Pakistan, two senior Afghan sources, including an official at their spy agency, told The Daily Beast. The pair said that U.S. has already taken a chemical fingerprint of the bomb used by a Jordanian double agent in the attack, and that it matches an explosive type used by their Pakistan equivalents, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI.

If there is ISI involvement, then it compounds the issues raised by this bombing significantly.

Nibras Kazimi at Talisman Gate explains how this will reverberate through the jihadi community:

[Khorasani] is someone that many jihad-watchers have followed over the years . . .

If all the facts here are true, then this is huge. Huge. This story's immediate effect is to give the jihadists a massive morale boost. They will mythologize this story into a recruiting tool that encourages more and more young men who sympathize with the jihadists to surmount their instinctual fear of the nebulous intelligence services of the Middle East, and to challenge the autocracies that supposedly keep a lid on jihadism. Khorasani has left a lot of hero-worship material, much of it very smart at manipulating emotions. Now, he himself is the hero in the eyes of jihadist wanna-bes. Many will seek to emulate him, or even outdo him. . . .

This also raises a host of issues regarding security, field craft, and counterintelligence. Anyone can be fooled, but for six senior agents all to be milling about within the kill radius of a suicide bomb before Khorasani was searched is simply inexplicable. Leon Panetta claims that Khorsani was about to be searched when the bomb was set off, as if that somehow is an explanation for six deaths. It actually makes their failure to observe even basic common sense security procedures all that more blatant.

Dave In Boca discusses several of these issues in a very good post and I highly recommend you read it. He also adds this bon mot:

Robert Baer just came back from a visit to Kabul and environs and found that only two CIA officers spoke a local language, Dari, while NONE speaks or understands Pushtun, the language [that] most of the Al Qaeda Pathan in Afghanistan and their Taliban Punjabi brothers in Pakistan and Baluchi Taliban in Quetta converse in.

We are nine years into the war in Afghanistan. If this report is true, then there are more sucking chest wounds in our intelligence wing than merely security and counterintelligence. Indeed, I find this as breathtaking in its implications as is the fact that a suicide bomber was able to kill six senior CIA agents with a single suicide bomb. It means that nine years in, we essentially have an intelligence presence in Afghanistan - now America's main war effort - that is functionally deaf and illiterate. How the hell can the CIA expect to accomplish its intelligence mission without agents in country trained in the primary language spoken in Afghanistan. This isn't the stuff of 007 - its the stuff of a very bad Pink Panther movie. It is so 180 degrees off from what I would expect of a professional intelligence agency that I am near speachless. I am dead serious when I say that, between this failure of basic security procedures and the failure to have Pashtun speakers in a Pashtun speaking country when we are nine years into a war in said Pashtun speaking country, Sylvester Reyes and Leon Panetta should be emasculated and have their testicles hung at the Langley main entrance. This is utterly beyond belief.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama Fails His First Test As Commander In Chief [Updated]

We must be set to face a long war. . . . [T]he United States can accept no result save victory, final and complete. . . . [T]he sources of international brutality, wherever they exist, must be absolutely and finally broken.

- Barack Obama, Speech at West Point, 2009
- FDR, Speech to the Nation, 1941

Obama stood his first real test tonight as a wartime commander in chief. He fell far short of the challenge.

As a threshold matter, I fully support President Obama's decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan. That said, the most important thing to learn from tonight's speech was whether Obama was committed to achieving victory in Afghanistan. Victory in war historically has meant to engage and defeat one's foes, driving them to the point that they no longer have the will and or the ability to continue the fight. Obama charted another course tonight - one that, while not insuring defeat, seems anything but committed to "victory" in Afghanistan.

In one breath, Obama announced that he would send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. In his next breath, he announced a strategy of withdrawal beginning in 18 months. General McChrystal said in his August Commander's Assessment that one of the fundamental challenges we face is to convince the populace of Afghanistan to support us as opposed to the insurgents. As McChrystal stated, we have not been successful because of the Afghans' "perception that our resolve is uncertain." After tonight's speech, the Afghans can be certain - the resolve of our President seems limited indeed.

McChrystal asked for 60,000 soldiers to fully resource his plans. He also provided Obama with a medium risk option of only supplying 40,000 additional soldiers and a high risk option of 20,000 soldiers. Obama, for a reason not addressed in his speech. chose to give McChrystal only 30,000 soldiers. Further, Obama limited the time of their operational use, promising to begin a drawdown of our combat soldiers in Afghanistan 18 months from today. Therefore, McChrystal will need to be very aggressive to accomplish his mission, and he will need to do so underresourced. Soldiers will be stretched thin. This inevitably means that much more American blood will be spilled than is necessary and that the chances of our achieving victory in Afghanistan are lessened, perhaps significantly so. For what? What possible reason can Obama have for not fully resourcing our operations?

The total cost of the increase in operations in Afghanistan next year is estimated at $30 billion. What would be an additional $30 billion in order to protect our vital national interests while at the same time giving every soldier deployed in country a better chance of coming home in one piece. In respect to just the stimulus bill alone of $750 billion for every liberal special interest imaginable, that is a drop in the bucket.

Given McChrystal's operational assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, his proposed strategy, and the nuances of the operation, I do not see how it will be possible to achieve victory in Afghanistan in eighteen months before the draw down of troops commences. This does not bode well at all.

Also from Obama's speech:

- "Open Ended commitment"

Having more than a passing familiarity with history, I think it is accurate to say that, never in all of recorded history has there been an instance of a leader committing soldiers to war under the constraint of an arbitrary time limitation. Obama claims that the opposite of such a time limited constraint is an "open-ended" commitment. That is ridiculous. The opposite is staying in a fight until the conditions of victory are achieved. That is an event triggered limitation, not an open ended commitment. The only reason it is not time certain is becasuse the enemy gets a say. You can compare Obama's speech on Afghanistan with FDR's speech on Dec. 9, 1941, here to see the difference. It is striking.

What Obama is doing is an attempt to both honor his campaign rhetoric - that Afghanistan is the "good war" that we "must not lose," while attempting to placate a far left base that lives in permanent Vietnam protest mode. The two cannot be reconciled, but he is willing to bet the lives of our soldiers that they can. Many months ago, I wrote a post, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh & McCain Derangement Syndrome, explaining with historical examples that the greatest danger I saw in electing Obama or Clinton would be that they would make wartime military decisions based on political expediency rather than on internalized values. The travesty of announcing that we are going to go on the offensive for 18 months and then begin withdrawing forces is a textbook case of political expediency. Such decisions are inevitably bad in the long run, both for our soldiers and for our national interests. For a much more in-depth discussion of the negative ramifications of Obama's decision to announce a time limit, see this article from Raplh Peters.

- "Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end."

Obama is not bringing the Iraq war to a "responsible end." Our soldiers won that war and it is an utter obscenity for him to stand at West Point and to imply anything else. It was the ultimate show of disrespect and dishonesty towards our soldiers. The only thing Obama is doing in Iraq is drawing down our occupation forces - though by forcing an early withdrawal of occupation forces, he may well be setting the stage for a return to violence and the return of Iran's mad mullahs. The mullahs would clearly like to renew their efforts to Lebanize Iraq.

- "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars . . ."

In a speech filled with non-sequiturs, this was probably the worst. Obama is trying to justify the political expediency of his decision with post-modern gibberish. Wars end in one of three ways. Victory, stalemate or defeat. If we pick up our marbles and leave before victory (or stalemate if that is the limited goal, such as in Korea) can be achieved, then we accept defeat. There is no other way to spin it. The left's decision to cut and run in Vietnam has had ramifations lasting down to the present day, with the most important being that it emboldened scores of our enemies. Had we "responsibly ended" the war in Iraq when Obama and the far left wanted, the results for our nation, the entire Western World, and Iraq would have been catastrophic. In that light, Obama's statement that we will "show our strength" by how "we end wars" is utterly - and very dangerously - nonsensical.

- "We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy . . . to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them, because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons. True security will come for those who reject them."

Prior to our building a nuclear arsenal, wars in Europe during the first half of the 20th century cost the lives of upwards of 80,000,000 people and completely destroyed whole economies. Since we created a nuclear arsenal, the total number or war deaths in Europe has been not even a fraction of a fraction of that. Perhaps there is a lesson here to be gleaned for our Commander in Chief.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of rational countries subject to deterrence by MADD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has meant 'true security.' Would we have already experienced WWIII against the Soviet Union and China if no country possessed nuclear weapons? Probably. And if so, what would have been the cost? Obama seems to be living in an incredibly dangerous fantasy world. He has little to no grasp of history. Obama would do well to read up on the Pax Romana. Virtually all of written history teaches that security is maintained by the perceived willingness and ability to project superior force. Nuclear weapons clearly enhance one's perception of that ability. Further, is there anyone other than a grade schooler in an ultra-liberal school in San Fran that believes the nuclear genie can be put back in the bottle?

Lastly, as to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, Iran is now about to build ten new nuclear reactors, and every day that Obama dithers, the entire Middle East comes closer to joining in the game of nuclear proliferation. That is the ultimate nightmare scenario. It presents an existential threat to America and the entire West. Yet Obama waffles on about a world without nuclear weapons. The problem is not that some people in the world have nuclear weapons, the problem is that people not deterred by MADD may soon have them. My suggestion, rather than worrying about the world's nukes, how about dealing posthaste with the mad mullahs' march to a nuclear arsenal.

- "And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights . . ."

Nice words, Mr. President, but your deeds directly contradict them. How about directing your words on human rights towards the Green Movement in Iran. Perhaps you haven't kept up on the news out of Iran since you took office, but the Green Movement protesters have been suffering the worst of human rights abuses while waiting to hear from you. Your silence has been both craven and deafening.

- The word count of Obama's speech, courtesy of Instapundit:

"I" - 45; "Afghanistan" - 39; "Victory" - 0

- The things Obama did very well in his speech

The highpoints of Obama's speech were his definition of the threat we face, tying together both al Qaeda and the Taliban, and his articulation of the strategic necessity to defeat those threats. I think his analysis of both was spot in.

Despite the fact that Obama is a far left ideologue, he is governing now. He has to consider the long term implications of his decisions. In that context, Obama has a pragmatic streak that kicks in when he senses the massive dangers of embracing the Michael Moore-Kos plank in toto. Thus did we see Obama keep many of the Bush tools for the war on terror, and thus do we see him now committing more troops to Afghanistan. Given his accurate analysis of the threat, he could not possibly justify ending the war effort now or simply failing to prosecute it any further - at least not after Gen McChrystal's Commander's Summary was leaked. You will recall that McChrystal said in that document that we are losing the war and that we have a 12 month window in which to set the conditions for victory in Afghanistan. What decision Obama would have made today without that leak is anyone's guess.

- Last Thought

The post modern far left is never going to support any war undertaken that is directly in our national interests. Obama has no chance of placating them short of withdrawal from Afghanistan. Thus his target audience should have been that good portion of the rest of America that is war weary but that will rise in support of their country if the President exercises his leadership. Obama needed to make this target audience understand what is at stake on an emotional level and then give a FDR/Churchillesque speech exhorting them to victory as the only option. It was certainly within his oratorical capacity to do so. Yet Obama utterly failed. Indeed, probably the most pointed criticism of his speech in that regard comes from, of all people, a German author, Gabor Steingart, writing in Der Spiegel:

One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

This was Obama's first test as a wartime President. He will very likely have another test in the future. When things are going bad in the war, when his political enemies (in this case, his base) are calling for his head, will he have the commitment to victory to continue the fight? Washington passed this test, as did Lincoln, FDR, Truman and Bush. We won the wars they fought because of their will to persevere. Will Obama do the same, or will he, on the day of his next test, weigh his actions on the scales of political expediency. I think that is still very much an open question and one that America's enemies, foreign (and dare I say domestic) will seek to exploit.

End Notes

I realize General McChrystal has come out with a statement saying that the resources Obama proposes will be adequate. That does not detract in any way from my above analysis that underresourcing is going to cost us in blood and effect the chances of success. Two, I also know that Obama nuanced his 18 month time frame with the magic words, "conditions on the ground." The issues of concern are not whether Obama's promise of an 18 month drawdown allows for wiggle room in 18 months (Barack "expiration date" Obama would find wiggle room in 18 months regardless of what he says today), but rather its immediate impact on the Afghani populace and, for that matter, on the strategy of our enemy. As to the latter, I can well imagine that al Qaeda and the Taliban will respond by making the most of this in terms of propaganda and by seeking to create another Harry Reid "this war is lost" moment. Regardless of the degree to which our average cave dwelling foe are formally schooled, I have no doubt that they intrinsicly understand the calculus of political expediency in the far left politics of America today.

Upade: If you haven't seen it, go to Hot Air and watch Jon Stewart's take on the speech. It's long but worth every minute of watching.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dhimmi Of The Millennium Award Winner?

Now, we don't want to jump the gun on this. It might be a little early to name a winner for Dhimmi Of The Millennium Award since there are 991 years left to go in the current millennium. But do read on - I just can't conceive of this one being beaten. It comes from Gateway Pundit via The Brussels Journal.

Most women who get repeatedly raped while being held captive might find that a tad objectionable. Not Joanie de Rijke, 43 year old left wing Dutch journalist who travelled to Afghanistan expecting to interview members of the Taliban. Taken captive by a Taliban commander, she was repeatedly raped by her Muslim captor while awaiting payment of a ransom. He even invited her to have a threesome with one of his three wives. After the ransom was paid and Ms. de Rijke was released, she defended her captor, saying she bore no animus: “I do not want to depict the Taliban as monsters. I am not angry with Ghazi Gul. After all, he let me live” and, she added, "they . . . respected me" and that they gave her "tea and biscuits.”

Dhimmi on steroids.

And, also, mentally unbalanced.

This points to a fascinating insight into the dysfunctional psychology of the left, particularly in Europe where the problem of Islamicization is severe. Dutch politician Geert Wilders explained it this way before the Dutch Parliament:

This story . . . is a perfect illustration of the moral decline of our elites. They are so blinded by their own ideology that they turn a blind eye to the truth. . . . Our elites prefer to deny reality rather than face it. One would expect: a woman is being raped and finds this unbearable. But this journalist is not angry because the Muslim involved also showed respect. Our elites, whether they are politicians, journalists, judges, subsidy gobblers or civil servants, are totally clueless. Plain common sense has been dumped in order to deny reality. It is not just this raped journalist who is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, but the entire Dutch elite. The only moral reference they have is: do not irritate the Muslims – that is the one thing they will condemn.”

Wilders really rattled the cages of the Netherlands' elite with that one. Denunciations have filled the airwaves. But Wilders is right. And to Mr. Wilders points, Thomas Landen at Brussels Journal adds:

Her reaction confirms precisely what Wilders was trying to say. In reality the Taliban are not monsters because they call themselves Taliban, but because they behave like monsters. People like de Rijke, however, no longer judge people by their behavior and their actions, but condone them for the noble motives which they imagine have driven them to commit their acts. As Wilders said, “They are so blinded by their own ideology that they turn a blind eye to the truth.”

This attitude led Joanie de Rijke to travel to Afghanistan in the first place, with the aim of interviewing Taliban terrorists who had killed ten French soldiers. This attitude leads her editor to question whether the Taliban who abducted and raped de Rijke are “real Taliban” because “real Taliban do not behave that way.” This attitude recently led an American woman in Bakersfield, California, to approach a man lurking in the parking lot where she had parked her car because, as she told the police, though the man looked like a thug she did not want to appear racist. The man held her at gunpoint, threatening to kill her 11 month old daughter, and robbed and raped her. This attitude has led Western Europe to open its doors to large scale immigration from Muslim countries. This attitude, and here Wilders does not take the argument far enough, is worse than the Stockholm syndrome.

Those who have been abducted and suffer from Stockholm syndrome usually have not placed themselves in danger willingly. They had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The phenomenon illustrated by the case of Joanie de Rijke is that of people who for ideological reasons deny the existence of danger and subsequently put themselves in danger. Unlike ordinary Stockholm syndrome sufferers they do not begin to shown signs of loyalty to the criminal while in captivity, but have already surrendered to the criminal before their captivity, and, indeed, have ended up in captivity as a consequence of their ideological blindness.

And so, in a way Joanie de Rijke is right. She did not develop Stockholm syndrome while in captivity. She had the syndrome even before she left for Afghanistan. It is natural that she should resent her state of mind being described as Stockholm syndrome, because she considers it to be the state of mind of a righteous and intelligent modern intellectual. It is the state of mind which she shares with almost the entire political and intellectual class of Europe today, that of the hostage to political correctness.

And Dr. Sanity adds her own thoughts on this issue, tying it in to Obama's approach to the "Muslim world" articulated in his Cairo address. According to the good doctor:

[W]ilders, whatever you may think of him, has nailed the fundamental problem with both Obama and de Rijke (and throw in Evan Thomas and most of the clueless left): they are desperate to deny reality.

The former enables and encourages the worse and most barbaric aspects of Islam by granting it moral equivalence with the West to maintain his own unrivaled grandiosity and self-delusion; the latter is willing to overlook being physically violated rather than confront her own cognitive dissonance and the delusions of her leftist ideology.

The leftist journalist raped by the Taliban is exactly the kind of person who worships the emptiness and vacuity of an Obama; and even depends on him to maintain her delusional world view, which habitually excuses the atrocities committed in the name of Islam while blaming America for all the evil in the world.

Islamoschmoozing is simply Obama's hopeychangey foreign policy strategy of appeasement. As hard as it is to believe, Obama and his denial of reality 'out-UNs' the UN and 'out-Europeans' the Europeans in taking the appeasement of Islam to new and greater heights of appeasementdom. . . .

Do read her entire post.

So is she Dhimmi of the Millennium? Or should we make it a group award to the entire Euroleft who are so upset with Geert Wilders for having the effrontery to pull back the curtains and shine some light on their incredibly dysfunctional society.

Read More...

Summary only...

Lawfare, Pakistani Style

Warfare and criminal law do not mix. We know that from trying for years to deal with al Qaeda through the Court system. It did nothing to stem the attacks against us, culminating in 9-11. Yet since then, when we put away the law books and took up the spear, there has not been another al Qaeda attack against U.S. interests outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Someone needs to inform Pakistan of this bit of reality.

One would think that, with the Taliban occupying terrain but 100 miles from the capital and imposing a brutal Sharia regime everywhere they hold sway, the Pakistani's might realize that they are, in fact, in an existential war. But apparently not. A Pakistani Court just ordered the release of Lashkar-e-Taiba leader Hafiz Saeed. He has extensive links to al Qaeda and was behind the Mumbai terror attack. Pakistan's problems are severe indeed, and attempting lawfare only compounds the troubles exponentially.

This from the Long War Journal:

A three-judge panel of the Lahore High Court has ordered the release of Lashkar-e-Taiba / Jamaat-ud-Dawa leader Hafiz Saeed.

Saeed was placed under a loose house arrest in mid-December 2008 after the United Nations Security Council declared the Jamaat-ud-Dawa a terrorist entity and front group for the Lashkar-e-Taiba just weeks after the deadly terror assault on Mumbai in late November that killed more than 170 people and locked down the city for more than 60 hours. Saeed and Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, Haji Mohammad Ashraf, and Mahmoud Mohammad Ahmed were identified as Lashkar-e-Taiba leaders.

Today Saeed was ordered released by the Lahore court, despite the government’s presentation of evidence that linked him to al Qaeda. The evidence was presented in a closed session, as the information was deemed a national security secret.

The court did not give a reason for Saeed's release. His lawyer claimed, however, that the detention had been unconstitutional and that the release was a victory for Pakistan's legal system.

"The arrest violated the constitution, therefore Hafiz Saeed and his colleagues are being released," A.K. Dogar, Saeed's lawyer said, according to Dawn. "Today's verdict shows that sovereignty lies in Almighty Allah," Dogar proclaimed as a crowd of supporters chanted "Allahu akbar," or "God is greater," outside the courthouse.

Yahya Mujahid, a spokesman for the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, celebrated Saeed's release. "The order shows that courts in the country are free now and people are getting justice despite pressure," Mujahid told AFP. "We hope the authorities will now withdraw police guards deputed outside his residence which had been declared a sub-jail."

US intelligence officials are dismayed at Saeed's release and say the move shows that Pakistan has a long way to go to defeat terror groups operating on its soil.

"Forget what you are seeing in Swat," an intelligence official closely watching Pakistan told The Long War Journal. "More than six months after Mumbai, there has yet to be a single conviction or even a trial of anyone involved in the attack. Pakistan does not have the capacity to try and convict known terrorists."

"Saeed is untouchable, and don't think the courts and the police don't know this," another official said, warning that the continuous policy of releasing of leaders like Saeed, Red Mosque leader Maulana Abdullah Aziz, and others is sending a terrible message to those on the front lines against the terror groups.

"As long as he and others like him are free, Pakistan will remain a terror state," the official said. "Until Pakistan shows it is serious about taking down the leadership of the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, these groups will regenerate and prosper. And law enforcement in Pakistan will shy away from taking them on."

Saeed and Lashkar-e-Taiba have extensive links with al Qaeda and Pakistan's military intelligence service

Hafiz Saeed is the founder and leader of the al Qaeda-linked Laskhar-e-Taiba, or Army of the Righteous. India has implicated Lashkar-e-Taiba and Saeed as being behind the Mumbai terror attack. Saeed and the Laskhar-e-Taiba have strong links with elements within Pakistan's military and the Inter-Service Intelligence agency, or ISI.

Osama bin Laden and his mentor Abdullah Azzam encouraged Saeed to form Lashkar-e-Taiba in the late 1980s, and helped fund the establishment of the terror outfit. Lashkar-e-Taiba, like al Qaeda, practices the Wahabi strain of Islam, and receives funding from Saudis and other wealthy individuals throughout the Middle East. Lashkar-e-Taiba is an ally of al Qaeda; the two groups provide support for each other, and their operatives train in each other's camps. Lashkar-e-Taiba has established training camps in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province and the tribal areas.

Lashkar-e-Taiba has an extensive network in Southern and Southeast Asia, where it seeks to establish a Muslim caliphate. The group essentially runs a state within a state in Pakistan; the group has established an organization that is as effective as Lebanese Hezbollah. Its sprawling Murdike complex, just northwest of Lahore in Punjab province, is a town of its own. Lashkar-e-Taiba runs numerous hospitals, clinics, schools, mosques, and other services throughout Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. . . .

Read the entire article.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Story Is About Honor & Valor, Not Victims (Updated)

1LT Johnathan Bostrom












Cpl Gunnar Zwilling












Cpl Jason Bogar












Cpl Jason Hovater












Spc Sergio Abad












Cpl Jonathan Ayers












Cpl Matthew Phillips












Cpl Pruitt Rainey












Sgt Israel Garcia












This was the report three days ago in the NYT:

9 Americans Die in Afghan Attack

Taliban insurgents carried out a bold assault on a remote base near the border with Pakistan on Sunday, NATO reported, and a senior American military official said nine American soldiers were killed.

The attack, the worst against Americans in Afghanistan in three years, illustrated the growing threat of Taliban militants and their associates, who in recent months have made Afghanistan a far deadlier war zone for American-led forces than Iraq.

The assault on the American base in Kunar Province was one of the fiercest by insurgents since the American-led invasion of Afghanistan routed the Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in late 2001. . . .

The article was long, but shed no further light on the facts. Nor did the remainder of the article provide any differing emphasis beyond the portrayal of the Taliban and al Qaeda as growing in strength and aggressiveness. In other words, the storyline from the NYT is that we face an ever stronger enemy and that nine Americans fell victim to it.

This is pure bull! It is a complete distortion of reality. There is a story here. That is not it.

The real story here is one with countless antecedents in our military's history.

Acts of incredible bravery and an unyielding determination to win mark the greatest and most honorable deeds of our military. Such acts reappear with amazing regularity throughout our history. And to put in perspective what happened a few days ago in Afghanistan, it is worth pondering for a moment some of the more famous of these antecedents.

In the Civil War, out of ammunition and about to be overrun by advancing Confederate troops, the 20th Maine affixed bayonets and charged down Little Round Top. Their act of incredible bravery that day at Gettysburg marked the turning point of the war.

Tasked with destroying the enemy gun emplacements that defended the Normandy Beaches, the 2nd Ranger Battalion, under fire, scaled the 100 ft. cliffs at Pointe du Hoc They suffered the loss of 60% of their men. That was not the story. The story was that, despite those losses, they accomplished their mission, insuring the success of the D-Day Invasion.

The soldiers of the 23 Infantry Regiment spent Feb. 13, 1951 in a fight for their lives. They were massively outnumbered at Chipyong ni by an assaulting force of five Chinese divisions. When the smoke cleared, all that surrounded the surviving U.S. soldiers were the bodies of 5,000 Chinese dead and dying. These few men who refused to yield that day changed the course of the Korean War.

The bravery of these men, their valor, their utter determination to succeed against impossible odds, and the sacrifice of those who fell in the attempt, should literally bring tears to the eyes of every American - tears of intense pride in our country; tears of respect for the valor and sacrifice of these soldiers. They mark the very best of what is the finest and most professional military force ever to grace this earth.

Another thing to note is that each of the above incidents became famous and were lauded in the press of the day. These were the stories that instilled pride and stirred patriotism.

I recount all this because it appears that this recent battle on a lonely outpost in the Afghanistan should be counted among their number. The story the MSM should be reporting has nothing in common with the NYT article. The story is how a reinforced platoon size element of soldiers, vastly outnumbered, defeated a joint Taliban and al Qaeda attack on their position. The nine men who died at that Combat Outpost were not nine victims. They were nine soldiers who paid the ultimate price for their bravery. Their bravery and valor and that of every man on that mountain is the story.

This from Jeff Emanuel provides the entire story:

. . . Three days before the attack, 45 U.S. paratroopers from the 173d Airborne, accompanied by 25 Afghan soldiers, made their way to Kunar province, a remote area in the northeastern Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, and established the beginnings of a small Combat Outpost (COP). Their movement into the area was noticed, and their tiny numbers and incomplete fortifications were quickly taken advantage of.

A combined force of up to 500 Taliban and al Qaeda fighters quickly moved into the nearby village of Wanat and prepared for their assault by evicting unallied residents and according to an anonymous senior Afghan defense ministry official, "us[ing] their houses to attack us."

Tribesmen in the town stayed behind "and helped the insurgents during the fight," General Mohammad Qasim Jangalbagh, the provincial police chief, told The Associated Press. Dug-in mortar firing positions were created, and with that indirect fire, as well as heavy machine gun and RPG fire from fixed positions, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters rushed the COP from three sides.

The attackers quickly breached the outer perimeter, and, under a withering barrage of supporting fire, a contingent of a mere 70 U.S. and Afghan soldiers combined were forced to fight for survival on their own outpost against the all-out assault from nearly 100 assailants.

The overwhelmingly outnumbered U.S. troops called in artillery, as well as fixed and rotary-wing air support, to help the repulse the attacking forces.
As recounted by the AP and other media outlets, nine U.S. paratroopers lost their lives -- a full fifth of the American contingent.

Further, fifteen U.S. and four Afghan soldiers were also wounded in the attack, meaning that, against an assault and support force of nearly 500 militant fighters, only 21 U.S. and 21 Afghan soldiers were able to fight at full strength -- and they succeeded not only in killing dozens of attackers, but in repelling the onslaught completely.

. . . Perhaps the most important takeaway from that encounter, though, is the one that the mainstream media couldn't be bothered to pay attention long enough to learn: that, not for the first time, a contingent of American soldiers that was outnumbered by up to a twenty-to-one ratio soundly and completely repulsed a complex, pre-planned assault by those dedicated enough to their cause to kill themselves in its pursuit.

That kind of heroism and against-all-odds success is and has been a hallmark of America's fighting men and women, and it is one that is worthy of all attention we can possibly give it.

Read the entire article. I could not agree more with his conclusion. This is a story of heroism, valor and bravery that needs to be honored - and told by our MSM. If there is a shred of intellectual honesty and journalist ethics in our MSM, then this is a story that should be told with at least the amount of space and intensity given to Abu Ghraib. Our soldiers are doing their job. Will the MSM do theirs?

(H/T Joshua Pundit)

UPDATE: Here is at least part of the story as told by two soldiers, Sgt. Jacob Walker and Spc. Tyler Stafford, who were wounded in the battle and medevaced to Germany. This from the Stars & Stripes:

Everything was on fire. The trucks. The bazaar. The grass.

It looked surreal. It looked like a movie.

That was what Spc. Tyler Stafford remembered thinking as he stepped onto the medical evacuation helicopter. The 23-year-old soldier would have been loaded onto the bird, but the poncho that was hastily employed as his stretcher broke. His body speckled with grenade and RPG shrapnel, the Vicenza, Italy, infantryman walked the last few feet to the waiting Black Hawk.

That was Sunday morning in eastern Afghanistan’s Kunar province. At a forward operating base — maybe as big as a football field — established just a few days prior.

Outnumbered but not outgunned, a platoon-plus element of soldiers with 2nd Platoon, Company C, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment (Airborne), 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team accompanied by Afghan soldiers engaged in a fistfight of a firefight.

After maybe two hours of intense combat, some of the soldiers’ guns seized up because they expelled so many rounds so quickly. Insurgent bullets and dozens of rocket-propelled grenades filled the air. So many RPGs were fired at the soldiers that they wondered how the insurgents had so many.

That was July 13. That was when Stafford was blown out of a fighting position by an RPG, survived a grenade blast and had the tail of an RPG strike his helmet.

That was the day nine Chosen Company soldiers died.

. . . The first RPG and machine gun fire came at dawn, strategically striking the forward operating base’s mortar pit. The insurgents next sighted their RPGs on the tow truck inside the combat outpost, taking it out. That was around 4:30 a.m.

This was not a haphazard attack. The reportedly 200 insurgents fought from several positions. They aimed to overrun the new base. The U.S. soldiers knew it and fought like hell. They knew their lives were on the line.

"I just hope these guys’ wives and their children understand how courageous their husbands and dads were," said Sgt. Jacob Walker. "They fought like warriors."

The next target was the FOB’s observation post, where nine soldiers were positioned on a tiny hill about 50 to 75 meters from the base. Of those nine, five died, and at least three others — Stafford among them — were wounded.

When the attack began, Stafford grabbed his M-240 machine gun off a north-facing sandbag wall and moved it to an east-facing sandbag wall. Moments later, RPGs struck the north-facing wall, knocking Stafford out of the fighting position and wounding another soldier.

Stafford thought he was on fire so he rolled around, regaining his senses. Nearby, Cpl. Gunnar Zwilling, who later died in the fight, had a stunned look on his face.

Immediately, a grenade exploded by Stafford, blowing him down to a lower terrace at the observation post and knocking his helmet off. Stafford put his helmet back on and noticed how badly he was bleeding.

Cpl. Matthew Phillips was close by, so Stafford called to him for help. Phillips was preparing to throw a grenade and shot a look at Stafford that said, "Give me a second. I gotta go kill these guys first."

This was only about 30 to 60 seconds into the attack.

Kneeling behind a sandbag wall, Phillips pulled the grenade pin, but just after he threw it an RPG exploded at his position. The tail of the RPG smacked Stafford’s helmet. The dust cleared. Phillips was slumped over, his chest on his knees and his hands by his side. Stafford called out to his buddy three or four times, but Phillips never answered or moved.

"When I saw Phillips die, I looked down and was bleeding pretty good, that’s probably the most scared I was at any point," Stafford said. "Then I kinda had to calm myself down and be like, ‘All right, I gotta go try to do my job.’ "

The soldier from Parker, Colo., loaded his 9 mm handgun, crawled up to their fighting position, stuck the pistol over the sandbags and fired.

Stafford saw Zwilling’s M-4 rifle nearby so he loaded it, put it on top of the sandbag and fired. Another couple RPGs struck the sandbag wall Stafford used as cover. Shrapnel pierced his hands.

Stafford low-crawled to another fighting position where Cpl. Jason Bogar, Sgt. Matthew Gobble and Sgt. Ryan Pitts were located. Stafford told Pitts that the insurgents were within grenade-tossing range. That got Pitts’ attention.

With blood running down his face, Pitts threw a grenade and then crawled to the position from where Stafford had just come. Pitts started hucking more grenades.

The firefight intensified. Bullets cut down tree limbs that fell on the soldiers. RPGs constantly exploded.

Back at Stafford’s position, so many bullets were coming in that the soldiers could not poke their heads over their sandbag wall. Bogar stuck an M-249 machine gun above the wall and squeezed off rounds to keep fire on the insurgents. In about five minutes, Bogar fired about 600 rounds, causing the M-249 to seize up from heat.

At another spot on the observation post, Cpl. Jonathan Ayers laid down continuous fire from an M-240 machine gun, despite drawing small-arms and RPG fire from the enemy. Ayers kept firing until he was shot and killed. Cpl. Pruitt Rainey radioed the FOB with a casualty report, calling for help. Of the nine soldiers at the observation post, Ayers and Phillips were dead, Zwilling was unaccounted for, and three were wounded. Additionally, several of the soldiers’ machine guns couldn’t fire because of damage. And they needed more ammo.

Rainey, Bogar and another soldier jumped out of their fighting position with the third soldier of the group launching a shoulder-fired missile.

All this happened within the first 20 minutes of the fight.

Platoon leader 1st Lt. Jonathan Brostrom and Cpl. Jason Hovater arrived at the observation post to reinforce the soldiers. By that time, the insurgents had breached the perimeter of the observation post. Gunfire rang out, and Rainey shouted, "He’s right behind the sandbag."

Brostrom could be heard shouting about the insurgent as well.

More gunfire and grenade explosions ensued. Back in the fighting position, Gobble fired a few quick rounds. Gobble then looked to where the soldiers were fighting and told Stafford the soldiers were dead. Of the nine soldiers who died in the battle, at least seven fell in fighting at the observation post.

The insurgents then started chucking rocks at Gobble and Stafford’s fighting position, hoping that the soldiers might think the rocks were grenades, causing them to jump from the safety of their fighting hole. One rock hit a tree behind Stafford and landed directly between his legs. He braced himself for an explosion. He then realized it was a rock.

Stafford didn’t have a weapon, and Gobble was low on ammo. Gobble told Stafford they had to get back to the FOB. They didn’t realize that Pitts was still alive in another fighting position at the observation post. Gobble and Stafford crawled out of their fighting hole. Gobble looked again to where the soldiers had been fighting and reconfirmed to Stafford that Brostrom, Rainey, Bogar and others were dead.

Gobble and Stafford low-crawled and ran back to the FOB. Coming into the FOB, Stafford was asked by a sergeant what was going on at the observation post. Stafford told him all the soldiers there were dead. Stafford lay against a wall, and his fellow soldiers put a tourniquet on him.

From the OP, Pitts got on the radio and told his comrades he was alone. At least three soldiers went to the OP to rescue Pitts, but they suffered wounds after encountering RPG and small-arms fire.

At that time, air support arrived in the form of Apache helicopters, A-10s and F-15s, performing bombing and strafing runs.

When the attack began, Walker was on the FOB. He grabbed an M-249 and started shooting toward a mountain spur where he could see some muzzle flashes. Walker put down 600 to 800 rounds of ammunition.

He got down behind the wall he was shooting from to load more ammo and was told they were taking fire from the southwest. He threw the bipod legs of his machine gun on the hood of a nearby Humvee. A 7.62-millimeter caliber bullet struck Walker’s left wrist, knocking him to the ground. A soldier applied a tourniquet to Walker and bandaged him.

Walker and two other wounded soldiers distributed their ammo and grenades and passed messages.

The whole FOB was covered in dust and smoke, looking like something out of an old Western movie.

"I’ve never seen the enemy do anything like that," said Walker, who was medically evacuated off the FOB in one of the first helicopters to arrive. "It’s usually three RPGs, some sporadic fire and then they’re gone … I don’t where they got all those RPGs. That was crazy."

Two hours after the first shots were fired, Stafford made his way — with help — to the medevac helicopter that arrived.

"It was some of the bravest stuff I’ve ever seen in my life, and I will never see it again because those guys," Stafford said, then paused. "Normal humans wouldn’t do that. You’re not supposed to do that — getting up and firing back when everything around you is popping and whizzing and trees, branches coming down and sandbags exploding and RPGs coming in over your head … It was a fistfight then, and those guys held ’ em off." . . .

You can find the article here and a video of the interviews of Sgt. Walker and Spc. Stafford here. To reiterate what Sgt Walker said of the men who fell that day:

"I just hope these guys’ wives and their children understand how courageous their husbands and dads were. . . . They fought like warriors."

I say again, there were no victims in Afghanistan on July 13. Just U.S. soldiers whose story deserves to be told. If the MSM won't tell, please make sure this Stars and Stripes article gets passed around.

Update: The pictures above taken from the site Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group. That blogger also has several updates on battle. See here. And Strategy Page has a post on how the military is upset with the media portrayal of this battle.

Read More...

Summary only...

Terror Camps Proliferate In Pakistan Financed By Opium Production

The next President is going to face severe national security challenges on numerous fronts, not the least of which will be nuclear armed and, in part, terrorist occupied Pakistan. The ineffectual actions of the Pakistani government are allowing terrorists to flourish. They are fueled by huge sums of money from the drug trade - which suggests that the drug eradication program being tried in Afghanistan is equally ineffectual. It is only a matter of time before this matter has to be dealt with, either by Pakistan or by NATO.
_______________________________________________________

This from Bill Roggio at the LWJ:

Al Qaeda continues to grow its network and expand its capabilities in northwestern Pakistan, US military and intelligence officials told The Long War Journal. The peace agreements have given the Taliban and al Qaeda time and space to reestablish their networks, which pose a threat not only to Pakistan, but the West as well.

Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and allied terrorists groups, collectively called al Qaeda and allied movements, or AQAM, by some in US military and intelligence circles, has set up a series of camps throughout the tribal areas and in the settled districts of the Northwest Frontier Province. "More than 100" terror camps of varying sizes and types are currently in operation in the region, a senior US military intelligence official told The Long War Journal. As of the summer of 2007, 29 terror camps were known to be operating in North and South Waziristan alone.

Some camps are devoted to training the Taliban's military arm, some train suicide bombers for attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, some focus on training the various Kashmiri terror groups, some train al Qaeda operatives for attacks in the West, and one serves as a training ground the Black Guard, the elite bodyguard for Osama bin Laden. A US Special Forces raid against the Black Guard camp in Danda Saidgai in North Waziristan, Pakistan in March 2006 resulted in the death of Imam Asad and several dozen members of the Black Guard. Asad was the camp commander, a senior Chechen al Qaeda commander, and associate of Shamil Basayev, the Chechen al Qaeda leader killed by Russian security forces in July 2006.

The growth in the number of camps US intelligence officials said Pakistan is outpacing Iraq as the destination for recruits, The New York Times reported earlier this week. Iraq is now seen as a lost cause by jihadists while Pakistan is now seen as al Qaeda's main effort. Recruits from Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East are heading to Pakistan.

Al Qaeda has also reformed Brigade 055, the infamous military arm of the terror group made up of Arab recruits. The unit is thought to be commanded by Shaikh Khalid Habib al Shami. Brigade 055 fought alongside the Taliban against the Northern Alliance and was decimated during the US invasion of Afghanistan. Several other Arab brigades have been formed, some consisting of former members of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guards, an intelligence official told The Long War Journal.

. . . The deteriorating situation in Pakistan's tribal agencies is highlighted by the increased incidences of cross border attacks over the past several months. Today, 11 Pakistanis, including nine soldiers, were wounded in an attack launched from Afghanistan into the lawless, Taliban-controlled tribal agency of South Waziristan.

. . . Afghan and Coalition forces have fought a series battles with the Taliban along the ill-defined border as Taliban have been attempting to overrun military bases and district centers in the region. US and Afghan forces have killed more than 200 Taliban fighters in the lopsided battles. Many of the Taliban attacks have been launched from inside North and South Waziristan in Pakistan.

. . . The security situation in Pakistan's tribal agencies has spiraled downward since the government negotiated peace agreements with the Taliban in North and South Waziristan in 2006 and throughout early 2007. The agreements gave the Taliban and al Qaeda time and space to consolidate their hold in the tribal areas and in some settled districts of the Northwest Frontier Province. The Taliban renewed their efforts to destabilize the Afghan government and boldly conducted a series of military attacks in Northwestern Pakistan and a bloody suicide campaign in the major cities.

The new Pakistani government has reinitiated peace negotiations with the Taliban in the northwest. Peace agreements have been signed with the Taliban in North Waziristan, Swat, Dir, Bajaur, Malakand, Mohmand, and Khyber. Negotiations are under way in South Waziristan, Kohat, and Mardan. The Taliban have violated the terms of these agreements in every region where accords have been signed.

Read the entire article. As to the financing of the terrorists, it is coming from nearly $150 billion dollar drug trade arising out of opium production in the region. This from AKI:

Opium cultivation is the prime source of income for the Taliban and enables the militants to buy arms for their insurgency against the Afghan government.

But they rely on an efficient distribution system and regional experts believe that senior Afghan officials are colluding with the Taliban for their own gain.

Zaid Hamid, security expert and head of the Pakistani think-tank, BrassTacks, told Adnkronos International (AKI) that several players were involved in the game of drug trafficking and the collusion of Afghan officials was crucial.

"The total drug economy of Afghanistan is estimated to be 150 billion dollars out of which only one billion dollars returns to Afghanistan," Zaid Hamid told AKI.

"The rest is laundered through the international banking system which indicates that several other players are involved in the game of drug trafficking and the receipts to the Afghan insurgency are very small."

Hamid said that Russian and Chinese anti-narcotics forces had recently told their colleagues in Pakistan that the flow of drugs from Afghanistan into their respective countries had reached a crisis.

"They are facing a crisis-like situation," he told AKI. "The figures provided to Pakistan suggested the majority of the drug smuggling is taking place through northern corridors (a non Taliban area)".

"These routes linked Afghanistan to Central Asian states, Afghanistan to Russia and from the Afghan province of Badakshan to Tajikistan and to China. The third route is coming from Afghanistan to Pakistan to the UAE (United Arab Emirates) through the Arabian Sea.

"With this course, the receipts of money coming back to Afghanistan is very small, according to notes given by the Russians to Pakistan."

. . . Various statistics confirmed the claim that several players are involved in the game of drug trafficking beside the Taliban.

Gul endorsed British media reports that Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the current Afghan president was involved in the drug trade.

"Everybody in Afghanistan and Pakistan knows that the powerful person in the distribution of drugs is Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Hamid Karzai," Gul told AKI.

Hamid Gul's claims can be substantiated through many accounts that the Taliban is the base of this trade but the cartel is far complex.

Nevertheless, the real issue is still not the local farmers whose fields are in remote villages only but the distribution networks in which a strong cartel involving the Afghan government is involved.

A senior official working for the British Government's office in the province of Helmand, seconded to the anti-narcotics mission, told AKI that the poppies are cultivated mostly in the districts controlled by the Taliban like Bagran, Musa Qala, Nawzad and Sangeen.

He said from Laskhar Gah, the capital of Helmand, the crops are transported with the collaboration of the police and the local administration and then goes deep inside to the Garmser district from where it reaches to Pakistan and then through Arabian Sea it is distributed through various markets.

Read the entire article.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting Posts From Around The Web - 9 March 2008

A round-up of interesting posts from around the web, all below the fold.

Art: Marathon, Carl Rottman, 1648
______________________________________________________

Likelihood of Success: Ron Coleman ponders the massacre of students in Israel. I do not agree with his conclusion, but it is thoughtful, moral, and thus must be accorded great respect.

Soccer Dad: Retaliation for the massacre needs to be swift, far ranging and brutal. "[P]eace is impossible with Palestinian leaders for whom reconciliation is a one-way process."

The Irish Elk: March 7, 203 and the martrydom of Saints Perpetua & Felicitas

This Ain’t Hell: NPR angers their audience with conservative heresy.

Yourish: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Ironic Surrealism: Heh. You might be a Taliban if . . . . (my favorite: "You wipe your butt with your bare left hand, but consider bacon ‘unclean.’")

Soob: The intersection of evolutionary psychology, polygamy and Muslim suicide bombers.

The Fulham Reactionary: How clueless is the chattering class in the UK? Perhaps you can discuss it while pondering the solution to racism as part of an interracial gathering for coffee and biscuits with the UK’s Culture Minister.

Sheik Yer’Mami: The latest in jihad news, including al Qaeda plants in London’s police force, hanging homosexuals in Iran, and UK’s odious Home Secretary banning Jews to appease the Islamists.

No Oil For Pacifists: Solid arguments for the efficacy of telecom immunity provisions in FISA.

Dhivehistan Report: Miss Sri Lanka – hot chick.

Whited Sepulchre: Thus sayeth Thomas Sowell on NAFTA, thus let it be written.

Faultline: Obamacans may be a con.

Vast RightWing Conspiracy: Hillary’s ridiculous claims to have played a substantive role in the Irish peace negotiations.

Red Alerts: A great link round-up, including posts on slavery in Saudi Arabia and the web’s sexiest nerds.

An Englishman’s Castle: Media silence on the Manhattan Declaration and global warming fraud.

A Western Heart: A must see pic for the global warming crowd.

MK’s Views: More feel good leftiness without any scientific support.

Covenant Zone: Keen insight - the history of man is predicated on first-guessers.

Liberty Corner: A classical ethical bind for lawyers is not so difficult for non-lawyers.

VenjanzTruth: A blacklash on the Robert Downey Jr. satire.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pakistan: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

The Good: Free and fair elections have been held, and Bhutto's party, has won the most delegates while the MMA, a religious party that supported the rise of the Taliban - has lost its hold over the Northwest Fronteir Province (NWFP), home of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The Bad: Musharaffaf's party clearly lost, the pro-Wahhabi / pro-Saudi party of Nawaz Sharif came in second in the voting.

The Ugly: The victors will, in the long term, be able to deal most effectively with the terrorist threat. But in the short-run, they favor negotiating with the "alligator."

___________________________________________________________

The results of the election are nearly counted in what was, by most accounts, a free and fair election. This from the Long War Journal:

Election results are available for 240 of the 272 seats for the National Assembly, as well as for the four provincial assemblies. The PPP -- the party of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto -- is in the lead with 87 seats, followed by the 66 seats won by the PML-N, the party of Nawaz Sharif who is also a former prime minister. The PPP is on track to form the governing coalition.

The Pakistani Muslim League-Quaid, Musharraf's party, has won only 38 seats. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement -- a students’ movement based in Sindh province -- won 19 seats and the Awami National Party (a secular Pashtun party) won 10. The MMA only won three seats. Thirty-five seats have been distributed to independents, while results are still being counted for 26 of the seats. Elections were postponed in four districts.

. . . The clear winner is the Pakistan People's Party as it will form the next government, appoint a new prime minister, and will control the Sindh provincial government. The PPP was widely expected to win the election, but the outcome was by no means certain. The Dec. 27, 2007 assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the group’s popular leader, plunged the party into a leadership and identity crisis. The reins of the party were turned over to her husband Asif Ali Zardari, who faced charges of corruption for embezzling $1.5 billion during Bhutto’s time as prime minister, and her 19-year-old son Bilawal Zardari, a student at Oxford. Aftab Ahmed Sherpao, the former Minister of the Interior and leader of the PPP-Sherpao also is a winner within the PPP. He won his seat in Charsadda, where the Taliban made two attempts on his life during 2007.

Nawaz Sharif and his party, the Pakistani Muslim League-Nawaz, were also expected to win big. The PML-N is poised to take second place in the National Assembly polling and will also control the provincial government of Punjab. While Sharif was not allowed to run for political office, he is exercising power through his party. Sharif has opposed military operations against the Taliban and has been accused of accepting bribe money from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

The Awami National Party, with its 10 seats, may serve as an influential coalition partner with the PPP. The ANP will control the Northwest Frontier Province, and has stated it will ally with either the PPP or PML-N to form the provincial government. The ANP is a secular Pashtun party that is opposed to military action against the Taliban and promotes nonviolent solutions. The Taliban conducted two major strikes against ANP offices in North Waziristan and Kurram the week before the election, killing and wounding scores of its members.

Western watchers who have closely followed the election in Pakistan see the transition to democracy as being key to fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda insurgency that threatens to destabilize nuclear Pakistan and the wider region. Numerous attacks against the West and India have been hatched in al Qaeda training camps in the tribal areas. The US government hoped a coalition between Bhutto and Musharraf would provide the unity needed between the secular political class and the military to fight the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda in northwestern Pakistan.

Read the entire article. The NYT, in its coverage, emphasized that, at least initially, this is problematic for Bush, given his relationship with the now politically isolated Musharraf, and claimed that the victors wanted a "dialogue with the insurgents." That latter is not borne out in the reporting:

. . . Mr. Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, said the new Parliament would reverse many of the unpopular policies that fueled the strong protest vote against President Pervez Musharraf and his party.

Bush administration officials said the United States would still like to see Pakistan’s opposition leaders find a way to work with Mr. Musharraf, a staunch ally for more than six years, but conceded that the notion appeared increasingly unlikely. In comments in Ghana, where he is on a tour of African states, President Bush on Wednesday praised Mr. Musharraf and said the election had been judged fair.

In an interview published Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Musharraf said that he had no plans to step down and that he wanted to stay in office to help bring about a stable democratic government.

Though Mr. Zardari said he wanted a government of national consensus, he ruled out working with anyone from the previous government under Mr. Musharraf.

Instead he said he was talking to the leader of the other main opposition party, Nawaz Sharif, whose party finished second, about forming a coalition.

. . . Mr. Sharif was twice prime minister in the 1990s and faced numerous corruption charges himself after being ousted by Mr. Musharraf in a coup.

Mr. Sharif quickly announced several conditions for joining a coalition. They included the impeachment of Mr. Musharraf and the restoration of the chief justice and other Supreme Court judges suspended by the president in November.

Mr. Zardari was less categorical, not calling for Mr. Musharraf’s impeachment, for instance. The struggle to end military rule and bring a return to democracy is a long, uphill battle, he said.

“We might have to take soft, small steps,” he said at a news briefing at his home in the capital after a meeting of 50 senior members of the party.

Still, the first order of business will be to undo restrictions on the media and restore the independence of the judiciary, he said.

. . . Mr. Zardari criticized the antiterrorism policies of Mr. Musharraf, saying that he had played a double game that had led to an increase in militancy. “We feel they in the government are running with the hare and hunting with the hounds,” he said.

The two opposition parties share similar views of how to tackle the terrorism problem. The new approach is more likely to be responsive to the consensus of the Pakistani public than was Mr. Musharraf’s and is more likely to shun a heavy hand by the military and rely on dialogue with the militants.

Mr. Zardari said his party would seek talks with the militants in the tribal areas along the Afghan border, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda have carved out a stronghold, as well as with the nationalist militants who have battled the Pakistani Army in Baluchistan Province.

. . . Some analysts saw opportunities for the United States if a new civilian government could persuade Pakistanis to get behind the fight against the militants. But past attempts to deal with the militants have left them stronger, and any policy too accommodating is likely to raise concern in Washington.

A former chief of staff of the Pakistani Army, Gen. Jehangir Karamat, said the election of a new government should help the United States if it was looking to work with moderate forces.

“It’s an opportunity to rejuvenate this whole relationship,” General Karamat said. “What we are seeing through these elections is moderate and liberal forces, which is absolutely great.”

Other analysts agreed. The emergence of a moderate Parliament should be good news for the United States, said Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani military analyst based in Washington.

“If Parliament will now have a stronger hand than before in national decision-making, then the United States should be pleased, since it will not have to beg and cajole Pakistan to act in its own interests against the terrorists,” Mr. Nawaz said.

But the results left the Bush administration, which has leaned heavily on Mr. Musharraf, scrambling to find new partners in the campaign against Islamic militants in the region. The election of a hostile Parliament is expected to further marginalize the president, or even push him out, in a country where power traditionally lies with elected prime ministers or the military chiefs who have overthrown them.

. . . Mr. Musharraf told visiting United States senators that he had accepted the election results and the defeat of his party, and would work with any coalition government that was formed.

. . . Mr. Zardari discussed Pakistan’s options with the militants in an interview last week. He said the campaign against terrorism needed to be redefined in Pakistan. He said it needed to be better explained to the people so they understood it was not America’s war they were fighting, but a threat to their own nation.

Mr. Zardari said that Mr. Musharraf had lost popular support for the campaign and that the morale of the army had plummeted, asserting that only a popularly elected government with the backing of Parliament could reverse that.

He added that a counterinsurgency should be waged by the police in the tribal areas, and that Pakistan had to train and equip its police forces to curb much of the lawlessness. The army is a blunt instrument and should be used selectively so that militants are awed by its power, he said.

Read the entire article.

As I said, I do not think that this election can be characterized as a failure for President Bush. Rather, as the WSJ notes:

The results of Pakistan's parliamentary vote are being billed as a repudiation not only of Pervez Musharraf, but also of President Bush, who has mostly supported the Pakistani strongman over the past seven years. We're more inclined to see the elections as a vindication of both.

Overall, these are very positive developments, with the exception of the strong showing of Nawez Sharif's party. Perhaps now, Pakistan, whose prior governments, incuding Sharif's, have been responsible for fanning the flames of the Taliban, may now take a firm stand against them. To the extent they wish to try dialogue first, that is fine. It will clearly not work, as such dialogues have proven only a boon for further radicalization in the past. Indeed, as Gateway Pundit recently noted, Pakistani family from the NWFP are now fleeing into Afghanistan to escape the violence.

The Taliban and al Qaeda are folks for whom their goals are a zero sum game. They will win or be defeated utterly. Attempting to negotiate with them for half a loaf has not and will not work. That said may be the step necessary to get the people of Pakistan behind the fight and convince them that this radicalization must be ended wholly irrespective of whether the U.S. also has a dog in the fight.

The other question that I have is what will the new government do about the problem of Saudi maddrassas infecting their country with their Wahhabi poison. Until that one is addressed, the problem of radicalization in Pakistan will never be solved.

Update: Bill Rogio is reporting that: "The [Pakistani] government [in the NWFP] has essentially revived the same terms of the 2006 North Waziristan Accord, minus the demands for the tribes to oppose the Taliban and al Qaeda." This is insanity. The incoming government cannot possibly do worse than the craven bungling of the current government.

Read More...

Summary only...