Some Flaws In The Ointment

It concerns me greatly that, while Barack Obama continues to whistle past the graveyard of his own inexperience, his opponents (Senators McCain and Clinton) are scoring deeply disturbing hits at his expense.

First up, Hillary:

At a late-night rally in Burlpe, she noted that Mr. Obama served as chairman of a subcommittee responsible for Europe and NATO and that the United States has had difficulty in getting NATO to help out in Afghanistan. “My opponent, when he talks about his foreign policy experience, he includes his chairmanship of this subcommittee,” she said.
Referring to Tuesday night’s debate, she added: “And what you learned last night is, he’s never held a substantive hearing or meeting to look at what is going on in NATO, to take a hard look at what’s happening in Europe. And in fact, the reason he hasn’t, as he said, is he got the assignment when he started running for president. Well, I don’t think that’s an adequate excuse.”

She's right: it's not. To suggest that his own ambition and Presidential plans supersede any quantitative and substantive discussion of NATO and Europe's role in hunting down what he himself admits is a grave danger to American interests, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Taliban support it receives (in Tuesday's debate, he scored a couple of points by noting the debacle in Iraq came at the expense of hunting down Osama Bin Laden at al) is at once foolish and foolhardy. He could have held at least one meeting in the past six months, particularly during lags in the campaign, at which he could have dressed up a pig and put some make up on it and called it a discussion.

He couldn't even do that, tragically. Which brings us to the long distance encounter with John:

During the recent Democratic debate, John M. Broder and Elisabeth Bumiller of The New York Times write, “Mr. Obama had said in response to a hypothetical question that although he intended to withdraw American forces as rapidly as possible, he reserved the right to send troops back in ‘if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq.’ ”

Mr. McCain pounced on the remark. “I have some news,” he said at a town-hall-style meeting in Tyler, Tex. “Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq.’ My friends, if we left, they wouldn’t be establishing a base. They’d be taking a country, and I’m not going to allow that to happen.”

His debate answer was flippant and naive, to say the least, and his quick stab at clearing the air was even dumber:

Mr. Obama, campaigning in Columbus, Ohio, responded soon after. “I have some news for John McCain,” Mr. Obama said at a large rally at Ohio State University. “There was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”

True enough, Senator, but guess what?

They Are There Now!

As you so artfully described it on Tuesday night in defending your current votes "yes" on funding the Iraq invasion (I may have been under anesthesia, but damn, even I saw an opening here), "Once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out."

You can't have it both ways, Barack: either you go hunt down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan while preventing its expansion in Iraq-- it exists, it is there and while it may be quiet now, it has established territory-- or you admit you have no clue as to how to engage in a comprehensive national security policy that defends our interests while assisting Iraqis in recovering from what everyone except John McCain has called a blunder, yourself included.

And stop your whining about this!

Oh, Brother...

Insanity has been defined as trying the same thing over and over, expecting a different result (meaning insanity is the essence of psychological conditioning, but I digress).

In foreign affairs, especially in the "war" on terrorists, it's a dangerous game to play:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — A new and classified American military proposal outlines an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as part of a broader effort to bolster Pakistani forces against an expanding militancy, American military officials said.

OK, makes sense: buy a warlord or a dozen, and enlist their help in tracking down Osama and his minions, and capture them.

Right? Eh. Not so much:

But it raises the question of whether such partnerships, to be forged in this case by Pakistani troops backed by the United States, can be made without a significant American military presence in Pakistan. And it is unclear whether enough support can be found among the tribes, some of which are working with Pakistan's intelligence agency.

Why am I uncertain of the efficacy of this strategy?

Afghan Warlord Teams Up With Taliban And Al Qaeda

Afghan Warlord Splits With Taliban

More detail? Here:

Most disturbing to the allied commanders is that at least two of the enemy warlords, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, received many millions of dollars in cash, plus sophisticated weapons from the CIA and the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI), when they were fighting against the Soviet occupation of their country in the 1980s. Those weapons have now been turned against their former providers.

Lieutenant-General Karl Eikenberry, commander of Combined Forces Command in Afghanistan, with 20,000 US soldiers under his control, said western intelligence had identified a "Taliban triumvirate" that has been operating since spring of this year. [...]

At that time, the Americans did not care that Hizb-i Islami, the militant group founded by Hekmatyar, espoused an extremist religious and anti-Western ideology, and attracted thousands of religious radicals to Afghanistan, among them Osama bin Laden himself.

Hekmatyar even became prime minister twice in the 1990s. After September 11 2001, he sided with Osama bin Laden, and was named as a global terrorist by an executive order of the US government. He has issued a tape calling for a jihad against the US and offering rewards for those who kill US troops.

See, the rule of thumb when dealing with allies within factions of a country that one is at war with is, "If you buy them, they should stay bought."

This scenario has not played out, truthfully, in Afghanistan and there is no reason to think that Pakistani tribal leaders won't do the same: take US aid and particularly, arms, then turn around and protect Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They are more Pashtun than Pakistani (or Afghani), and so are the Taliban and much of Al Qaeda in that region.

So you tell me: is blood thicker than a falling dollar?

Gee....How Nice Of Him...

Three thousand Americans died on September 11, 2001. On September 14, President George W Bush vowed to get "the folks who did this"

I'm guessing Hamid Karzai missed that memo:

KABUL (Reuters) - The Taliban freed a French aid worker on Saturday as President Hamid Karzai marked the anniversary of the end of communist rule with a fresh offer of olive branch to the resurgent Islamic guerrillas.

WHA?????

Let's take a closer look at this:

At a colorful ceremony in Kabul for the 15th anniversary of the fall of the Soviet-backed communist regime, Karzai again pleaded with the Taliban to talk peace.

"Today, while celebrating the jihad victory, we once again invite those who have sided with aliens because of seduction against their nation, to give up sedition and evil and join peaceful life," he said.

And those three thousand dead Americans, the nation that put you, an Unocal puppet, back in charge, including the natural gas pipeline Unocal is building to Pakistan?

Wouldn't it be nice if the those men and women could join you at your festival of peace?

The real kicker was the Taliban response to this offer:

France's Foreign Ministry confirmed that one member of an aid group who had been kidnapped in Afghanistan early this month had been released.

Why are we fighting in Iraq again?

tags technorati :

The Problem With Crowing About Something...

...is sometimes, you have to eat yourself:

RIYADH (Reuters) - The death toll in a militant attack on French tourists in Saudi Arabia rose to four on Tuesday after a French teenager died from bullet wounds, a hospital doctor said on Tuesday.

The boy's father was among three French expatriates working in Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, who were shot dead during a desert trip on Monday in what appeared to be the first attack by suspected al Qaeda militants on foreigners in three years.

An acquaintance who did not want to be named said the men were machine gunned down in front of the women and children, confirming a report from a security source[...]

They were part of a group of nine French nationals living in Riyadh who had been visiting historic sites and camping in the desert in the scenic western region of the vast desert country.

Islamic militants swearing allegiance to al Qaeda launched a violent campaign to topple the U.S.-allied Saudi monarchy in 2003, with suicide bomb attacks on foreigners and government installations, including the oil industry.

So, Al Qaeda pops its ugly head up in Saudi Arabia after all these drinks. Where else?

KABUL (Reuters) - A Taliban suicide bomber killed up to 12 people at the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Tuesday in an attack the rebels said was aimed at Dick Cheney, but the visiting U.S. vice president was not hurt.

An American and South Korea soldier were killed, as well as a U.S. government contractor whose nationality was unknown, NATO and Korean officials said. NATO said 27 people were wounded.

A Reuters photographer at the scene at Bagram Airbase, 60 km (40 miles) north of Kabul, saw eight bodies in addition to NATO's tally of four dead, putting the toll at 12.

Oops! OK, not Al Qaeda, but an incredible facsimile! These were the guys we were supposed to be getting six years ago, right?

Eh....not so much...

ISLAMABAD, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Britain does not foresee any chance of dialogue with Taliban leaders running an insurgency in Afghanistan, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in Pakistan on Tuesday.

Beckett said she had no inclination to talk to Taliban commanders whose expressed goals were to kill British troops stationed in Afghanistan.

But, she added that talks with former Taliban or sympathisers who were no longer active might be a possibility in the future.

Because, you know, there's been this "spring offensive" in the works since November...

Six years after the declaration of victory in Afghanistan the British government announced the dispatch of 1,400 extra troops yesterday in readiness for an escalation of the violence sweeping the country.

The sending of the troops, along with aircraft, armoured vehicles and artillery, will raise the total force there to 7,700 making it bigger than the one now deployed in Iraq.

...which, if you only watched US network news, you would only have heard about either this weekend, when Dick Cheney finally raised his helmeted head out of his playpen secure bunker to announce with grave alarm:

US Vice President Dick Cheney today sought Pakistan’s help in countering al-Qaida’s efforts to regroup in its remote border region.

He warned that Taliban militants are planning a “spring offensive” in neighbouring Afghanistan, the Pakistani president’s office said.

Now, if you really wanted to flush out the Taliban AND Al Qaeda, wouldn't you go to where the money came from?

No, not Saudi Arabia: Pakistan:

experts say that Pakistan’s military and Interservices Intelligence (ISI) both include personnel who sympathize with—or even assist—Islamist militants. ISI has provided covert but well-documented support to terrorist groups active in Kashmir, including the al-Qaeda affiliate Jaish-e-Mohammed, which investigators linked to the December 2001 attack on the Indian parliament and the February 2002 murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

*Ahem* But we've made our bed and now must sleep in it. I swear, Musharraf has done such a bang up job of misleading the Bush administration, I'm surprised he hasn't tried to sell them on the idea of a pipeline through his country to the India! For natural gas!

Um. Oops.

So we have terror attacks against Westerners in Saudi Arabia resuming, a Taliban offensive in Afghanistan, assisted by Pakistan's ISI, forming up, and possible Al Qaeda cyberattacks on our banking and other financial institutions.

In effect, they've taken six years to regroup, reform and re-energize the network. Add to that the growing threat of non-Al Qaeda terrorism, and the fact that every year since we've attacked Iraq has seen more deaths from more terrorist attacks in more countries than the previous year.

All while Al Qaeda lay dormant. While some of our *koffkoff* finest minds have said Al Qaeda is on the run...

And Bush thought 2006 was a bad year for him! I expect he'll be crying for his mommy by September.

snarkasm, snarcasm, snarky

Bush
Iraq
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Al Qaeda
Taliban