Learning (!) From Bachmann and Santorum

There isn't much difference among the Repub candidates for President, at least among those who get invited to debate, such as the seven who appeared last night at Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina (transcript here).

Oh, there is Jon Huntsman, the one candidate who believes that science is not a trick of the antichrist, but his dangerous economic views are straight out of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and he nonetheless has no chance of gaining the nomination. And then there is Ron Paul, who is antagonistic toward military adventurism, but otherwise has gotten to the right of the other candidates, an impressive acrobatic feat.

But there is a difference, even among the other five. We now know that Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich should pack up their bags, go back to Texas and Georgia, and never, ever pretend that they even want to be president.

Almost unbelievably, the two candidates who put them to shame last night were Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, when co-moderator Scott Pelley asked

Governor Perry, why is Pakistan playing a double game, saying that it supports the United States one moment and then supporting terrorists who are killing American troops the next? What's going on there?

After a response from the longest-serving governor in the United States, Pelley followed up, and Perry then stated

They've been doing this for years. Their political people are not who are in charge of that country. It's the military. It's the secret service. That's who's running that country. And I don't trust 'em. And we need to send clear messages. We need to do foreign aid completely different. I'm tellin' you, no dollar's goin' into those countries. As a matter of fact, if they want any American aid, any country, unless we say differently, the American manufacturing, big companies, small companies, going in to help create economic--

A minute and a half later, the National Journal's Major Garret asked of Newt Gingrich "....You have seen, at times, the proper role of the United States through foreign aid and other interventions. I want to know if you agree with-- Governor Perry about starting at zero?" The former Speaker of the House and alleged policy wonk replied

I'm absolute-- I mean, what he said made absolutely perfect sense. Why would you start every year-- and consider the alternative. You're giving some country $7 billion a year. So you start off-- or-- or in the case of Egypt, $3 billion a year. So you start off every year and say, "Here's your $3 billion, now I'll start thinking"? You ought to start off at zero and say, "Explain to me why I should give you a penny."And let me tell you, the fact that the Pakistanis-- (APPLAUSE) he didn't think about this. The Pakistanis hid Bin Laden for at least six years in a military city within a mile of their national defense university? And then they got mad at the people who turned him over to us? And we think those are the acts of allies? I think that's a pretty good idea to start at zero and sometimes stay there.

Make no mistake about it: neither Perry nor Gingrich knows much about Pakistan or cares much about Pakistan. Their responses were all about pandering, as audience applause reflected. Recognizing the unpopularity of foreign aid (especially in the abstract), a Washington Post blogger noted in April

In poll after poll, Americans overwhelmingly say they believe that foreign aid makes up a larger portion of the federal budget than defense spending, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, or spending on roads and other infrastructure. In a November World Public Opinion poll, the average American believed that a whopping 25 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. The average respondent also thought that the appropriate level of foreign aid would be about 10 percent of the budget — 10 times the current level.

Compared with our military and entitlement budgets, this is loose change. Since the 1970s, aid spending has hovered around 1 percent of the federal budget. International assistance programs were close to 5 percent of the budget under Lyndon B. Johnson during the war in Vietnam, but have dropped since.

Americans generally believe the U.S.A. is overly generous aiding other nations which, given our GDP, is far off the mark. While Romney, Paul, and Cain were not directly confronted on the issue, Perry and Gingrich played to the crowd. Michele Bachmann, however, sits on the House Intelligence Committee and, commenting between Perry and Gingrich, informed her colleagues

Pakistan is a very difficult area, because they have been housing terrorists and terrorists have been training there. Al Qaeda, as well as Hikani, as well as other militias dealing with terrorist organizations. But I would not agree with that assessment to pull all foreign aid from Pakistan. I would reduce foreign aid to many, many countries. But there's a problem, because Pakistan has a nuclear weapon. We have more-- people affiliated with Al Qaeda closer to that nuclear bomb than in any nation. This is an extremely important issue.

A few moments later, Rick Santorum addressed the same issue and explained (in part)

Well, let me just stop back and-- and-- and say I disagree with a lot of what was said up here. Pakistan must be a friend of the United States for the reason that Michele outlined. Pakistan is a nuclear power. And there are people in this-- in that country that if they gain control of that country will create a situation equal to the situation that is now percolating in Iran.

In her response, Bachmann couldn't resist criticizing President Obama over Israel and Santorum for his part seemed all too comfortable with the regime in Islamabad. But no matter. Given a golden opportunity, they chose not to trivialize the issue of nuclear power but instead to acknowledge the complexities of cutting off a nation at the knees. By contrast, Rick Perry is ignorant and Newt Gingrich irresponsibly opportunistic.

Contemplating the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists, candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum demonstrated a basic understanding of a volatile region of the Asian continent, and Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich did not. If they had any sense of dignity, they would get out and get out now.

Share|

Into Afghanistan

Almost- almost- hidden between an explanation of the history of our involvement in Afghanistan and of the justification for continuing our military presence in south Asia came the meat of President Obama's speech on December 1 at West Point:

And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops wil begin to come home.

So there it is: we are ratcheting up our military (and civilian) effort and after awhile, will begin to draw down our involvement.

Obama's address has been criticized on many fronts. On the conservative, critical remarks by two Red State bloggers reflect some of the disgruntlement with the speech.

Moe Lane remarked disparagingly "President Obama spoke 4,582 words in his primetime Afghanistan war speech at West Point last night. He said “al Qaeda” 22 times. He mentioned the “Taliban” 12 times. And here’s how many times the Democratic chief executive used the word “victory” — 0." And Jeff Emanuel complained "If only we were so lucky as to have a President who actually recognized that history existed before January 20, 2009 — something that he and his administration simply refuse to do (with the sole exception to that rule being the amazingly unprofessional and unpresidential non-stop banging of the “blame-everything-on-my-predecessor” drum)."

It's hard to imagine any two comments less sensible. No one, not even anyone on the right, has defined what "victory" would mean in central or southern Asia. The word exists mostly as a rhetorical device to whip up the base and to imply that the President (or whatever Democrat is being attacked at the time) is slightly unpatriotic, albeit more obliquely and tastefully than Dick Cheney's charge that Mr. Obama is giving "aid and comfort to the enemy." President George W. Bush came closest to defining victory- "Mission Accomplished" is what he called it. How did that work out for you?

Mr. Emanuel is not the only Republican who complains that President Obama frequently demeans his immediate predecessor. It's tough for these conservatives to be reminded of the miserable failure the most conservative President of the post-World War II period was. Generally, history, and facts, are things so many conservative Republicans find distasteful. Last night, Obama noted

I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort.

Exactly what part of this is untrue? With any sense of embarrassment or humility, the right would acknowledge, perhaps silently: at least he didn't point out that the stakes in Iraq pale in comparison to those in Afghanistan. Or that actual 'victory' in Iraq is elusive and would do little for either the stability of the U.S.A. or of the region.

Some criticism from the left also misses the mark. Tristero at Hullabaloo asks "But if mostly what they're doing is teaching, then why are 30,000 more American soldiers needed in Afghanistan? Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations recently responded to such skepticism in The New Republic when he explained

training and combat are not exclusive of one another. The former requires the latter, and to field a large Afghan force faster will require more, not fewer, U.S. combat troops.

To build an indigenous security force in the middle of a war is not like teaching math to high school students--it cannot be done successfully by a handful of teachers in classrooms with chalk and blackboards. To field Afghan troops quickly without breaking them in the process requires close partnership on the battlefield, with experienced Western combat units that provide on-the-job training, mentoring, confidence-building, fire support, and stiffening in actual combat. And this requires Western troops, in large numbers, living and fighting together with Afghan forces at all levels of command. The faster the Afghans are to be fielded, the more Western combat forces are needed. If a large Afghan military is to be raised, then many tens of thousands of Americans will be needed, and those Americans will be exposed to combat, and to casualties.

And the process takes time even so. In the meantime, someone must protect not just key population centers but also the recruitment centers, supply depots, bases, and transportation connections needed to create the new Afghan formations in the first place. Close partnership with expanded indigenous forces is indeed the best way to pursue counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.

Tristero argues also that Obama's military goal was not made clear, suggesting that it might be to "capture/kill al Qaeda's leaders" whereas "the Taliban didn't attack the US, al Qaeda did." However, the President clearly understands this dynamic, having explained

Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

And the linkage with the Taliban:

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.

A safe haven, J. Alexander Thiel argued in foreign policy.com the day prior to the speech

remains practically and psychologically important to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was born in the Pashtun belt, and intermarriage and familiarity make this the "home field" -- far more than Somalia or Yemen. The jihads that drove out the "infidel" British and Soviet empires were launched here, and success in driving out the Americans would immeasurably bolster the reputation and fortunes of the militants.

Peter Bergen of the New America Foundation answers skeptics, such as David Thayen at Firedoglake, who believe that Al Qaeda, if sufficiently threatened in Afghanistan, could move its base of operations to Somalia, Yemen, or Pakistan. He believes

The point about Somalia and Yemen is unconvincing. Jihadists based there have shown no ability to hit targets anywhere but in their immediate neighborhoods. Many years after September 11, there is scant evidence that any senior Al Qaeda leaders have relocated to either place. For its part, Somalia is probably too anarchic, and possibly too African as well, for the largely middle-class Arab membership of Al Qaeda. In theory, of course, it's always possible that Al Qaeda could pick up and move elsewhere. But, with the exception of a few years in the 1990s, Al Qaeda has now been based in Afghanistan and Pakistan for a generation. This is the region where its leaders feel comfortable, where they have put down roots. If they didn't leave even after the United States conquered Afghanistan in late 2001, it seems unlikely that they will in the future.
The point about Pakistan serving as a safe haven is a bit more complicated. After all, what good does it do to secure Afghanistan when Al Qaeda and the Taliban are headquartered in Pakistan? Actually, plenty. "Defending Afghanistan will not eradicate a terror network in Pakistan," explains Georgetown professor Bruce Hoffman. "But failing to defend Afghanistan will almost certainly give Al Qaeda new momentum and the greater freedom of action that an expanded geographical ambit will facilitate."

The obstacles to "a successful conclusion," as Obama termed it early in the speech, are enormous and the policy may not work. As Thiel argued on Monday, "Afghan stability will not be accoomplished through a strategy whose principle objective is to exit." One hopes that the timetable for departure of American forces is not determined by the specter of Vietnam or domestic political factors but by U.S. security considerations.

This is not, after all, Vietnam- not only for the reasons advanced by Obama, but also because success in Afghanistan is far more critical than it would have been in southeast Asia- or in Iraq. President Bush, in applying vastly greater resources to the effort in Iraq, was reaching for the low-hanging fruit and avoiding the far more difficult, and important, task of fighting Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan. And as Thiel notes of a nation with an estimated 80 to 100 nuclear warheads, "Pakistan's stability is directly affected by Afghanistan's stability (and) one of the greatest impacts we can have on Pakistani stability is to enhance Afghan stability."

President Obama at least appears to have a fairly good grasp of the consequences of failure in Afghanistan. His may not be the optimum approach, but withdrawal or continuation of the status quo would have carried an unacceptable risk.

"Victory?"

In an interview telecast (transcript from Think Progress) on Sunday's Fox News Sunday, Rush Limbaugh responded to a question about President Obama's Afghanistan policy from Chris Wallace by claiming

if he cared about victory — remember, he said about Afghanistan victory is not something he’s comfortable with, the concept. It reminds him of the Japanese surrendering on the USS Missouri. It made him very uncomfortable.

He wants to manage this rather than achieve victory. He says these things. I don’t know if people actually listen and have them register when he does.

Almost true- or almost almost true. On July 23, the President told ABC News "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur." But then he went on to clarify the aims of the U.S.A. in Afghanistan:

We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies. So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States....

We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development ... those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical.

No, President Obama is not interested in calling something a "victory" while not achieving victory. Now, in determining the proper course of U.S. policy in central Asia, he remains far more concerned with "contract(ing) the ability of Al Qaeda to operate," largely "to make sure they can't attack the United States."

What would "victory" look like in Afghanistan(or in Pakistan, a nation Rush seldom acknowledges)? Wallace didn't ask him and wisely, Limbaugh never said. Obama's concept of success in the region, ironically but not surprisingly, looks a lot closer than Limbaugh's to that of General Petraeus, whom Rush claims to hold in high regard. Asked by the BBC in September, 2008 "Do you think you will ever use the word 'victory,' the General responded

I don't know that I will. I think that all of us at different times have recognized the need for real restraint in our assessments, in our pronouncements, if you will. And we have tried to be very brutally honest and forthright in what we have provided to Congress, to the press, and to ourselves.

Later elaborating, he explained

This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade...it's not war with a simple slogan.

It's not only on GOP TV, unfortunately. Limbaugh and politicians in his party routinely use the word "victory" without defining anything. The term is invoked to stop discussion, to imply their view is the only patriotic one. Rarely are they asked to clarify their statement or define their term, and all discussion stops. Mission Accomplished.

A Con Job On Afghanistan

It is not ignorance with Rush Limbaugh. Rush knew enough in one of his rambling discourses on October 4 to explain "McChrystal wants to shift troops away from those remote outposts that are difficult to defend and move them into more heavily populated areas as part of a new strategy to focus on protecting Afghan civilians and this is what Obama's waiting on."

Limbaugh, apparently, has some idea of what the issues are in Afghanistan. But this didn't stop him from telling a caller a few minutes later

We were there before he got there but he ramped this up and I'm wondering how much of it was genuine or because he thought he had to just because during the campaign the Democrats say we should never have been in Iraq, we should have been in Afghanistan. That's where we needed to be. Bush distracted us from the real problem. That's where Osama is. We need to going after Osama. Now they couldn't care less about Osama

Never mind that Limbaugh won't acknowledge that President Bush had no policy toward Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Gates is only the latest individual to notice "that the strategy the president put forward in late March, is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s. And that strategy was more about [the] Soviet Union that it was about Afghanistan" (a strategically disastrous policy at that).

The manipulative nonsense Limbaugh is spewing here is the implication that President Obama is reluctant to provide the 40,000 additional soldiers requested by General McChrystal because "they (presumably the administration's doves but, as usual, Limbaugh cowardly avoids specificity) couldn't care less about Osama." But as someone with a decent knowledge about the war there, Limbaugh is intentionally misrepresenting the policy issue.

McChrystal is urging a counterinsurgency strategy (COIN), which would

underscore how much the mission in Afghanistan has shifted from the narrow focus of "get Al Qaeda" that prevailed at the start of the war to one where US soldiers and civilian aid workers are expected to reduce corruption at the local and national levels, train Afghan cops and soldiers, improve local economies, and aid in building a democratic central government.

In contrast, V.P. Biden wants to

Scale back the overall American military footprint in Afghanistan, drop the mission of rescuing the country from the Taliban, focus on strikes against Al Qaeda along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border -- the real threat to U.S. national security -- using special forces and Predator missile attacks.

Does this sound like "now they couldn't care less about Osama?" Of course not, and Limbaugh realizes it. He could inform his listening audience of those facts in the public domain, as Trudy Heller did on Sunday in The Philadelphia Inquirer upon noting

Only 16 percent of Pakistanis expressed a favorable view of the United States in a recent Pew Research Center survey. Only 13 percent had confidence in President Obama - a mere bump of 6 percentage points over former President George W. Bush.

And, critically, 76 percent are opposed to Pakistan's partnering with the United States in drone attacks against al-Qaeda and other extremists - even though those drones killed the man accused of murdering former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

And then he could make a reasonable observation, such as

Unless the United States develops a strategy for reaching Pakistanis, with real stories of U.S. aid - not fake "public diplomacy" - the local population will continue to view us with hostility, no matter how much aid money we send there. That hostility translates into gains for al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Rush Limbaugh could reverse course and occasionally provide his audience with information. Understandably, though, he finds it more productive to proceed on his course of deception and disinformation in his pursuit of re-creating a Republican majority.

Distortion On Pakistan

Sometimes Rush Limbaugh is just plain puzzling.

On Wednesday, Limbaugh offered up a soundbite from CNN's interview of American University Chair of Islamic Studies Akbar Ahmed in which he said

Remember that today for President Obama his greatest headache is not coming from Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans. It's really coming from Afghanistan and Pakistan. He staked his reputation and his foreign policy in that part of the world.

Somehow Rush distorted Ahmed's observation that the greatest threat to the United States now is Afghanistan/Pakistan into

So here you have the American University Chair of Islamic Studies, Akbar Ahmed, saying, "Limbaugh and the Republicans are not Obama's greatest headache. It's Afghanistan and Pakistan." Pakistan's falling apart. Pakistan's falling apart, and the Taliban is taking over. They did a stupid thing. They advocated a stupid thing. They gave the Taliban a province, at the urging of the Obama administration. They gave the Taliban a province in Pakistan.

The chairman of the Republican Party may have been referring to the move by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari described in The New York Times on 3/28 as

In a conciliatory gesture to the opposition party, Pakistan Muslim League-N, Mr. Zardari said that he would lift the executive rule he had imposed on Punjab Province, the most populous province in Pakistan and one where the opposition party holds the most seats in the legislature.

The article, however, gives no hint of support by the Obama Administration of Zardari's decision, which apparently intended to continue to deply remotely piloted aircraft, known as drones, armed with missiles against Al Qaeda in the tribal areas. And in a May 7 article in the conservative National Review Online, Alex Alexiev criticizes Washington's policy toward Pakistan beginning in the Clinton Administration, then continuing under President Bush and now under President Obama. He argues "Defense Secretary Robert Gates thinks that Islamabad’s capitulation to the Taliban in Swat — a deal conceived and executed by the military — is an acceptable compromise" (emphasis mine).

Perhaps this is what radio's most successful demagogue is referring to- a deal encouraged by the Pakistani military and executed by the Pakistani government with no encouragement by the Obama Administration.

Or perhaps Rush is confusing this with the Miramshah agreement worked out by the Pakistan government in September 2006 with North Wazirisan tribal leaders and members of the Pakistan in which

Islamabad withdrew troops, released 165 militants, agreed to economically compensate tribe members for their losses, and allowed them to continue carrying small weapons. In return, tribal leaders said they would stop the infiltration of militants across the Afghani border and prevent attacks on the military. However, in July 2007, militants renounced the deal and cross-border operations surged.

And when President Musharraf claimed "the deal is not at all with the Taliban. This deal is against the Taliban. This deal is with the tribal elders," President Bush responded "I believe him." As Mr. Bush did while his Administration doled out nearly $10 billion to the Pakistani President, who responded by trying to placate the Taliban, which was only strengthened and emboldened.

In contrast, President Obama on Wednesday met with Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Washington. There is a serious question whether Pakistan and Afghanistan will cooperate in the fight against the militants in the region, nor that Islamabad itself will fully commit its military in the fight against the Taliban. Still, as Howard Wolfson of CBS News wrote Friday

However you label the meetings this week - high level diplomatic consultations, strategy negotiations or old-fashioned head knocking - the administration has made a high profile roll of the dice to get Zardari and Karzai on board with a plan to do whatever it takes to get rid of those who threaten stability not only in their own backyards but beyond.

Mental Confusion

The chief of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl, an Islamist political party in Pakistan, told the nation's Parliament "If the Taliban continue to move at this pace, they will soon be knocking at the doors of Islamabad.... "

The Long War Journal reports that the Taliban are advanceing on the districts of Swabi, Mardan, and Malakand, and on Mansehra and Haripur. Ominously (emphasis mine),

The Taliban takeover of Haripur would put the Taliban on the doorstep of Islamabad and would also put two major nuclear facilities at risk.

Haripur borders the Margala Hills, a region in the Islamabad Capital Territory. Haripur also borders the Punjab districts of Attock and Rawalpindi.

Attock hosts two major nuclear facilities in Pakistan: the Wah Cantonment Ordnance Complex and the Kamra (Minhas) Airbase. The Wah Cantonment Ordnance Complex host three sites where nuclear weapons and components are stored and assembled and aircraft and missiles are modified for use in nuclear attacks. The nearby Kamra Airbase is thought to host attack aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

Apparently, this would little concern former Virginian governor Jim Gilmore, who afterward lost badly a Senate race and in his effort to claim the Republican nomination for President in 2008. According to the online edition of the Hampton Roads, Va. newspaper, The Daily Press, Gilmore has blasted Congressional Democrats and President Obama in a fundraising letter, claiming

....Our greatest danger comes from what's happening in Washington, D.C.

Thank you, Barack Obama. And running mate Joe Biden, former DNC head Howard Dean, and the Democratic campaign committees for the House and the Senate. If not for you, Gilmore and his crowd might be running the country. And we could have had another four years of his party: one whose ardent supporters went on and on about "radical Islamism" and "Islamofacism" while the President they supported conducted a war against a secular regime in Iraq, the assignment of which resources undermined the far more important task in Afghanistan. And a regime which subsidized a President- since forced to resign- of Pakistan, who turned around and made deals with Islamist terrorists which only emboldened and strengthened them.

We now have a chief executive who recognizes the importance of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region- and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee says he and his allies are the greatest danger faced by the United States of America. Fortunately, the adults have taken over, and some Republicans will learn to adjust, and catch up with the rest of the country, in time.

Debate Opportunities

Perhaps stung by (unfounded) allegations from the mainstream media, right-wing blogs, pundits sympathetic to the GOP, and Repub politicians that unnamed "Democrats" have been unfairly attacking Sarah Palin, the Biden-Obama ticket appears to be ignoring John McCain's running mate.

In the presidential debate on Friday, 9/26/08, Barack Obama was given at least two openings, which he chose to bypass, to respond effectively to John McCain by invoking the name of the Alaska governor.

Early in the debate, McCain criticized earmarks and pork-barrel spending and quipped:

You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don’t know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers’ money. And it has got to be brought under control.

This gave Obama an opportunity to respond "not the $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana, nor the $3.2 million in part to study the genetics of harbor seals in Alaska, as Governor Palin requested."

In another instance, McCain had been asked about Afghanistan and replied in part:

Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger.
I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.

Obama's response was reasonably effective but he could have added: "Apparently Governor Palin disagrees with you because when asked whether we have the right to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, she stated "we must do whatever it takes." So before you take off after me for wanting to go after terrorists on the Pakistani border, Senator, you may want to debate your running mate."

Sure, McCain is at the top of the ticket and the debate was with him. But pointing out a major difference between the presidential and the vice-presidential candidates probably would have been effective, and at worse highlighted John McCain's decision to select someone unfocused, unformed, and with few clues about foreign policy in a dangerous world.

Debate- Pakistan, Afghanistan



In the relatively boring presidential debate on Friday evening (9/26/08) that most objective observers would consider roughly a "draw," there were a few issues raised which give me the opportunity to demonstrate my bias- or, rather, incisive analysis.

One of these was Pakistan/Afghanistan. A question from Jim Lehrer about Afghanistan elicited these responses:

(McCain) Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger.
I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.... And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I’m going to attack them.

(Obama) Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here’s what I said.
And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has Al Qaida, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.,,, And the problem, John, with the strategy that’s been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, “Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he’s our dictator.”
And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren’t going after Al Qaida, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.

There are a few points that ought to be made:

1) Al Qaida is more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan, as this New York Times article of 6/30/08 suggests;

2) Obama never said, even figuratively, that he would "aim a gun" at Pakistan, nor did he publicly state that he would "attack them." At most, the Democratic candidate said that he would attack Al Qaeda. Here is exactly what Obama has said:

(8/1/07) As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan. I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

(7/15/08) The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.
Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

3) The Associated Press reported on 8/2/07: "McCain said the situation in Pakistan is "very delicate," since the country's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is an American ally with a tenuous hold on power. The Arizona senator said a direct American attack on the country could cause a backlash that might topple Musharraf." 9/27/08: Al Qaeda apparently resurgent in the border area of Pakistan/Afghanistan and Musharraf, disgraced, is gone anyway, no longer army chief of staff or president. United States policy toward Pakistan was in fact shaped by the ethos of the foreign policy establishment "well, you know, he's a dictator, but he's our dictator."

The Repub nominee may have confused Pakistan with Afghanistan (about which he had been asked), inasmuch as Obama said also on 7/15/08 "I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from NATO allies." Or McCain may intentionally have been misrepresenting Obama's policy toward Pakistan. Dishonesty or mental confusion- it's getting difficult to differentiate between the two with John McCain.

Pakistan: Obama, Bush, McCain, Palin

It's a fair question. What do our national leader(s) and those who want to be national leaders think about "hot pursuit"- not by police of suspects trying to escape, but by United States armed forces of Al Qaeda in northwestern Pakistan?

Barack Obama has made his position clear. In a speech on August 1, 2007 he declared:

There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

In a foreign-policy speech delivered on July 15, 2008 Obama argued

The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

John McCain has been almost as clear. The Associated Press on August 2, 2007 described the Arizona senator's response at Stanford University to Obama's remarks of the previous day:

McCain said the situation in Pakistan is "very delicate," since the country's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is an American ally with a tenuous hold on power. The Arizona senator said a direct American attack on the country could cause a backlash that might topple Musharraf.
"I think it's kind of a simplistic view of a very complex situation."

Sarah Palin is less clear. In the portion of her interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson that was aired on 9/11/08, Palin first advocated a policy at odds with the guy at the top of the ticket, then said "we have got to have all options out there on the table," which only means we should never say never. Here is the transcript:

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

And George W. Bush? In 2005 (according to The New York Times in July, 2007)

The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.
Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al Qaeda has improved its abilities to plan global attacks and build new training compounds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, which have become virtual havens for the terrorist network.

And now? The Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau (in their blog, "The Swamp") reports

The helicopter-borne U.S. Special Operations raid in Pakistan last week was not an isolated incident "but part of a three-phase plan, approved by President Bush, to strike at Osama bin Laden and top al-Qaeda leadership'' at the end of Bush's term, National Public Radio is reporting, citing well-placed sources.
"The plan calls for a much more aggressive military campaign, said one source, familiar with the presidential order, which gives the green light for the military to take part in the operations,'' NPR reports.

The bad news is that the plan may have been undertaken only because of the upcoming election and "represents an 11th-hour effort by the Bush administration to hammer al-Qaeda before leaving office,'' according to NPR. The good news? Bush seems to have adopted Obama's approach, reminiscent of Nouri al -Maliki adopting Obama's approach to a timeline when he declared in early July "the current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal;” and the announcement approximately two weeks later (7/18/08) of a long-term security pact between the U.S. and Iraq including "horizons" for withdrawal.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flatter, Barack Obama should be flattered that the Administration seems to value his judgement.... as long as the Democratic nominee doesn't expect any admissions: from Bush that his primary motive is political; from McCain that he's out of step; or from Palin that she hasn't a clue as to what she's saying.

Why Not McCain?- 4

It has become common wisdom that the United States military has been stretched too thin by the Bush Administration, attributable in part to fighting two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) simultaneously. There are two ways to increase the size of the armed forces sufficiently. One is to offer adequate incentives.

On January 4, 2007 Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) introduced the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007. As described in May, 2008 by foxnews.com,

Webb’s bill costs an estimated $52 billion, a number that can grow in out years as more take advantage of the benefits. It would provide to service members returning from Iraq or Afghanistan up to 36 months of benefits — equivalent to four academic years — to pay for tuition, books and fees as well as a $1,000 per month living stipend for qualified veterans.

Attached to a supplemental appropriations bill, the measure was signed into law by President Bush on June 30, 2008. Along the way, however, bill opponent John McCain, attempting to derail the proposal introduced a measure which was less generous and likely would have provided less of an incentive for young people to join the military.

The other way to build up the size of the armed forces is by a draft. And so it was that on August 15, 2008 at a town hall meeting in Las Cruces, New Mexico John McCain was told of the following by a woman in attendance (video here):

My son is an officer in the Air Force, I'm a vet., and I was raised in a military family. And I think it's a sorry state of affairs. When we have illegal aliens; having a medic-aid card that can access specialists, top physicians, the best of medical, and our vets can't even get to a doctor. And these are the people that we tied yellow ribbons for and Bush patted on the back. If we don't re-enact the draft, I don't think we'll have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of Hell.

And Senator McCain responded by first saying:

Ma'am let me say that I don't disagree with anything you have said, and thank you.

McCain then went into a lengthy statement expressing concern about the inadequate medical treatment received by veterans, and later that day Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic argued that the Arizona Senator previously explained opposition to a draft in response to a question at a town hall meeting earlier this year. However, McCain in September, 2007 suggested the possibility of a draft, as he did in companion statements of June, 2006 and July, 2008.

And McCain has boasted of his willingness to "follow binLaden to the gates of hell." Then an individual tells him that isn't possible without a draft. And he immediately says "I don't disagree with anything you have said." There are only two possibilities: either the Repub presidential nominee supports a draft or he opposes aggressive efforts to capture Osama binLaden.

Obama clearly wants to strengthen the military without instituting a draft. And in a major foreign policy speech on May 19, 2008 in Fayetteville, North Carolina, he reiterated a point he had made several times before:

If we have actionable intelligence about high-level al Qaeda targets in Pakistan’s border region, we must act if Pakistan will not or cannot.

If John McCain truly knows his mind about such critical issues, he's not letting on.

Bluff and Bluster

John McCain certainly was decisive at the forum hosted by Reverend Rick Warren of Saddleback Church on Saturday evening, August 16. He repeated his talking points with evident conviction, though as befits McCain, he may completely contradict those points, or claim he never made them, within days.

As he has throughout his campaign to gain the Repub nomination for President, McCain tried (and probably succeeded) to convince his audience that he is determined to capture Osama bin Laden. He issues the same vow repeatedly. He was asked:

How about the issue of evil? I asked this of your rival in the previous thing. Does evil exist and if so, should we ignore it, negotiate with it, contain it or defeat it?

He responded:

Defeat it. Couple points, one, if I'm President of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do that.


A little reality check. Here is a portion of a 7/6/08 posting of talk-show host and columnist Michael Smerconish, for whom the issue of terrorists operating out of Pakistan is a paramount issue:

To be sure, the United States should consult Pakistan about such actionable intelligence, Obama told me, but “we shouldn’t need permission to go after folks that killed 3,000 Americans. That’s part of the reason that I’ve been a critic from the start of the war in Iraq. . . . I felt we had a war that we had not finished".....We spoke again April 21. I asked Obama if he was prepared to stop writing the monthly check to Pakistan - payments now exceeding $10 billion. His reply: “Absolutely. [Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf was receiving billions of dollars and not doing much with it.

On June 16, I asked John McCain about Obama’s willingness to take action where Pakistan would not.... (and he answered in part) “. . . We have to have the cooperation of Pakistan in order to have these operations succeed,” McCain said. “. . . [I]f you alienate Pakistan, and it turns into an anti-American government, then you will have much greater difficulties.”


This is nothing new. On August 1, 2007- as he did later in debate- the Illinois senator explained "if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and (Pakistan) president Musharraf won't act, we will." McCain criticized Obama's argument. But this is telling: When Smerconish told McCain that because of this one issue he might vote for the Democratic presidential candidate "for the first time in my life," the Arizona senator replied "Well, then I tell you, my seeking the support of the American people, frankly, is over a lot more issues than that but I understand how important it is to you.”

That's right. This is the guy who admits that economics is not his strong suit but whom the media claim is some sort of foreign policy sage. And he is suggesting the American voter should consider overlooking his position on terrorism emanating from the Persian Gulf. Which raises two questions about John McCain: 1) If he is willing to follow Osama bin Laden to "the gates of hell," why not to Pakistan? and 2) If not national defense, what possible reason is there to vote for him?

Iraq Viewed In Isolation

Is this so difficult to understand?

Of course, Repubs don't understand it, or at least pretend not to. Ditto the news media, unsurprising because it has virtually throughout been cheerleaders for the war. Neither, though, do most of the supporters of Obama (though Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state is an exception), which is hard to figure out.

The candidate himself says it over and over. Here Katie Couric in her exclusive interview (with the candidate everyone else has interviewed) tries six times to get Barack Obama to say that the "surge" was successful, apparently because she is one of the many not to understand. The Illinois senator explains that the surge

doesn't meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. If that means that we're detracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, where conditions are deteriorating, if it means that we are distracted from going after Osama bin Laden who is still sending out audio tapes and is operating training camps where we know terrorists' actions are being plotted.

If we have shifted away from the central front of terrorism as a consequence of enormous and continuing investments in Iraq, then that's a poor strategic choice. And ultimately, what we've got to do is - we have to recognize that Iraq is just one of our … security problems. It's not the only one

What I'm saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years. And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are making America as safe as possible?

A few questions, inasmuch that Obama understands what very few others do:

-When did the goal of American foreign policy become victory in Iraq- Wasn't the Administration at one point concerned about terrorism (or at least pretend to be)?

-Doesn't the surging strenth of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan concern anyone besides the junior Senator from Illinois (and radio talk show host Michael Smerconish, wrong about most things but consistently right about this)?

-Why must we hear only about the surge, as if there is no connection between the improving situation in Iraq and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, where our nation is involved in a more critical war?

-Why does the other major party candidate believe Iraq and Pakistan share a border? (O.K., that one is a cheap shot.)

Of Afghanistan And The Surge

There is something about the mess in the Persian Gulf I don't understand.

On tonight's (7/17/08) episode of MSNBC's "Hardball," guest host Mike Barnicle led a discussion with public relations consultant and Repub strategist Mike Paul and Democratic strategist Steve McMahon. Recent ads by Barack Obama and John McCain were shown, followed by comments by Paul and McMahon. One such ad was put up by "Vets For Freedom," a third-party endorsement of Mccain in which various individuals emphatically asserted that the "surge is working." McMahon argued soldiers "on their fourth tour" are not anxious to remain in Iraq and "there's a political situation over there that hasn't improved very much."

True enough, and kudos to McMahon for asserting what is, or at least was before the presumptive Democratic nominee's obfuscation, the party's position on the war.

But in reports of 6/30/08 and 7/2/08 The New York Times noted:

the White House shifted its sights, beginning in 2002, from counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan to preparations for the war in Iraq.... Current and former military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas (of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan). (Now, there is) a strengthening Taliban insurgency that has menaced NATO forces and reclaimed control over some southern and eastern parts of the country.... (and) more American and coalition troops died in Afghanistan last month (i.e., June) than during any other month since the American-led invasion began in 2001.


So has the "surge" diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq? And if so, why haven't opponents of the Bush-Rice-McCain war policy (especially with Obama's emphasis on Afghanistan) not argued that: 1)the military success has resulted from diversion of resources from Afghanistan and 2)the Pakistan/Afghanistan front- not Iraq- is home to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda?

Failure In Pakistan

The report in yesterday's (6/30/08) New York Times, "Amid Policy Disputes, Qaeda Grows in Pakistan," reveals much about the Bush policy in the Persian Gulf.

We read of the plan devised by administration officials in late 2007 to enable American commando forces to operate more smoothly in the tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan, headquarters of al Qaeda, where peace agreements brokered by President Pervez Musharaff have allowed militants to operate increasingly freely. The plan, however, has stalled amidst bureaucratic in-fighting, a risk-averse attitude in Washington, and excessive concern about imperiling Musharraf's standing among Pakistanis.

The Times reports "it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world." In fact, Pentagon consultant and RAND Corporation terrorism expert Seth Jones explains "the United States faces a threat from Al Qaeda today that is comparable to what it faced on Sept. 11, 2001.”

Those who imply that diminished American casualties in Iraq during the "surge" justify continuation, or even launch, of the war should heed this important observation by The Times reporters: "current and former military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas." Consequently, according to the Times, "leading terrorism experts have warned that it is only a matter of time before a major terrorist attack planned in the mountains of Pakistan is carried out on American soil." Yet another unintended consequence of Bush's folly.

John Mccain continues his Modest Talking Express swing through the early primary/caucus states. Reacting on 12/27/07 in Urbandale, Iowa to the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazhir Bhutto, the Arizona Senator astonishingly claimed "I think my record is clear -- 20 years, I've been involved in every national security issue that's faced this nation. And I have the judgment to handle it, and I've proven it."

Put aside McCain's early, fervent support for the disastrous war in Iraq. Chicagotribune.com reported Barack Obama declaring on August 1, 2007 "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." According to politicalticker.blogs.cnn (from cnn.politics.com), on Sunday, August 5, John McCain was quoted by the online edition of The State (a Columbia, South Carolina newspaper) as criticizing Obama's remark as "that's kind of typical of his naivete" for allegedly announcing beforehand that he would take action.

On 11/26/07 McCain responded to remarks of Mike Huckabee, who two days earlier had stated that if there were an "imminent threat" posed by terrorists inside Pakistan, he would respond regardless of Pakistan's sovereignty. Huckabee asserted "We need to make sure we are clear that if we have an actionable target in Pakistan, that we will take action on that target because if that helps save and preserve American people." The Repub sage from Arizona pounced, asserting "to say something like that is totally unnecessary and probably has a not beneficial effect on our Pakistani allies who are fighting against al Qaeda and with us in Pakistan."

The assassination of Bhutto, whether by a terrorist, some other militant, or a hit winked at by John McCain's buddy, Pervez Musharraf, has dealt a serious blow both to democracy and stability in Pakistan. But the mainstream media will continue to portray McCain as some sort of foreign policy expert as they imply that Obama, Huckabee, and John Edwards (the only candidate originally to agree with Obama's 8/07 position) as out of touch with global reality.

Right on Pakistan


A little belated credit is due Barack Obama. I wrote at the time that I thought the Illinois Senator was correct, but the passage of (a few months) time has made him seem almost prescient. In a Democratic Presidential debate a few months ago, a- the- point of controversy was the effort of Obama to defend a statement he had made on August 1, 2007. From Reuters on that date:

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.


The reaction? As Fox News reported, from Chris Dodd, opposition: "Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning. But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power." From Bill Richardson, opposition: "My international experience tells me that we should address this problem with tough diplomacy with General Musharraf first, leaving the military as a last resort. It is important to reach out to moderate Muslim states and allies to ensure we do not unnecessarily inflame the Muslim world," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, another 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.

ABC News reported two other candidates, both Senators, criticized Obama's comments: "I am concerned about talking about it," she (Clinton) said. "I think everyone agrees that our goal should be to capture or kill bin Laden and his lieutenants but how we do it should not be telegraphed and discussed for obvious reasons." On NPR's "Diane Rehm Show," Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called Obama "naïve" and implied he wasn't experienced enough for the presidency. "Having talking points on foreign policy doesn't get you there," Biden said of Obama. (Note: Biden said also that he had recently wrotten a law conditioning aid to Pakistan on cooperation with the U.S.A. on fighting terrorists but that he first notified President Musharraf and Secretary of State Rice of his intent.)

And qualified support from former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, (who) said he would not hesitate to use force against extremists but said, "I believe we must first use maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to take all necessary actions to stop al Qaeda."

And since then: General Musharaff attempts to fire the chief justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court, spurring political turmoil; Benazhir Bhutto returns to the adulation of multitudes of Pakistanis and is put under house arrest; Musharraf imposes military rule.

So with the return from exile of Bhutto and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, it appears unnecessary or unwise for the Bush Administration to have placed its on the head of state and military strongman Musharraf.

So if Obama was right, with (qualified) support from that "peacenik" Edwards, and Biden seems to know something about the region, what about the guys in power: "Our approach to Pakistan is one that not only respects the sovereignty of Pakistan as a sovereign government, but is also designed to work in a way where we are working in cooperation with the local government," then-White House spokesman Tony Snow said. Let me translate: "We think Musharraf is just fine. But we don't want to criticize a Democratic candidate too much, lest we dilute our message that only we will keep you safe in a post-9/11 world because the Mommy Party wants to coddle terrorists- and, of course, not support the troops."

Our Buddy Musharraf

Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf may have declared a state of emergency throughout Pakistan and, as time.com notes, "suspended the constitution, blacked out domestic TV news broadcasts and arrested lawyers, human rights advocates and opposition political party figures." The U.S. government may be paying him approximately $80 million a month, approximately $1 billion a year, approximately $5.6 billion since payments began in October, 2001. And perhaps Musharraf inked a deal with militants in North Waziristan in northwestern Pakistan, the center of al Qaeda operations, assuring the extremists that his army would no longer conduct operations against them. And suppose Abdul Abdeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, had transferred nuclear technology to libya, Iran, and North Korea (two-thirds of the "axis of evil") from the late 1980's to the late 1990's, was caught, confessed, and pardoned in 2004 by Musharraf, supported by George W. Bush's State Department.

Now suppose all this happened and the President of the United States of America, father of Gulf War II and the man who "looked (Vladimir Putin) in the eye" and "found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy" lectures the American people "Pervez Musharraf has been a strong fighter against extremists and radicals."

This is southcentral Asia, where India and Pakistan face each other across a nuclear chasm. And this could be a nightmare, but instead is the latest indication of the horror Antonin Scalia and four other judge/politicans visited upon our country when they decided seven years ago that the votes of south Floridians were not worthy of being counted.

Terrorism, Pakistan, And Obama

Let's go over a couple of the facts about Pakistan:

-in September, 2006 President Pervez Musharraf negotiated a deal with the tribal warlords of northwestern Pakistan, effectively ceding all control to them, while the Pakistani army would be removed from that region;
-Osama bin Laden is believed to be holed up in northwestern Pakistan;
-The United States pays $80 million a month to Musharraf's government, payments thus far totalling approximately $5.6 billion, presumably for anti-terrorism efforts; and
-the recently released National Intelligence Estimate argues that al-Qaeda has reconstituted itself in northwestern Pakistan and the U.S.A. (or, the "homeland" to those who share the Nazi's fondness for the term) "will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years" due primarily to al-Qaeda.

Thus paying attention, on August 1, Barack Obama gave a statement outlining his policy on terrorism. It included the following:

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

The following day, Obama (according to WashingtonPost.com), responding to a question about use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan), stated "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss."

In the Presidential debate of 6/3/07 from Manchester, New Hampshire, Senator Clinton, asked if as President she would enact a no-fly zone in Darfur: "well, but we're not going to engage in these hypotheticals"; and about a missile strike against Osama bin Laden that might kill civilians: "I don't think it's useful to be talking in these kinds of abstract hypothetical terms." So on 8/2/07 she criticized Obama's refusal to discuss a hypothetical situation by arguing that he should not be discussing a hypothetical question: "Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons." (If this is incomprehensible to you, you're paying attention.) Of course, Obama's response was not that of a President discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons- but rather that of a candidate, a distinction lost on a candidate who herself refuses to answer "hypotheticals."

Fortunately, Senator Clinton did not criticize Obama's readiness to strike terrorist camps in Pakistan, if necessary, by conventional means. Others,however, were not so reticent. "It is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression that a President would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power," intoned Senator Dodd, aghast that a Presidential candidate might actually tell the American people what he would do as President. Warning "it is important not to unnecessarily inflame the Muslim world," Governor Richardson, in his rush to split infinitives and reassure Muslims, inadvertently implied that Muslims everywhere approve of the terrorism bin Laden and the Taliban have provoked. And still auditioning for Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration, Senator Biden remarked "the way to deal with it is not to announce it but to do it," apparently forgetting that, not currently being President, the Illinois Senator cannot "do it." Obama's statement, Biden continued, puts Musharraf "in the position that makes it virtually impossible for him to do anything other than what he's done, basically cut a deal with the warlords on the border." (Which, obviously, is the situation that Obama's consideration of a strike against terrorist camps is a reasonable response to. This can get very confusing.)

Senator McCain, whose foreign policy expertise has been demonstrated by his steadfast support of Mr. Bush's counterproductive invasion of Iraq, also criticized Obama's stance against the terrorist camps in northwestern Pakistan. And Bush spokesman Tony Snow lectured "our approach to Pakistan is one that not only respects the sovereignty of Pakistan as a sovereign government..." seemingly unaware that when a sovereign government declares a portion of its territory off-limits to its own security forces, it has ceded a significant portion of its sovereignty (and usefulness to a "war on terror.")

What does Senator Obama understand that these guys don't? A "war on terror" must be more than a slogan.

GOP Senators: Still Pro-War

I write this blog with trepidation, and the hope that I am merely pessimistic. But here goes....


First it was Richard Lugar of Indiana. On June 26, 2007 the hawkish ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stated from his chamber's floor "persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term." Later that day, Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, "concerned that we are running out of time," wrote President Bush "...we must begin to develop a comprehensive plan for our country's gradual military disengagement from Iraq." Then, on July 5, 2007 Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico announced at a news conference in Albuquerque "I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

What do these three statements of Republican Senators have in common? Let's listen in:
Voinovich: "We must not abandon our mission... and I have openly opposed any form of precipitous withdrawal...." Domenici: "I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops." And, according to MSNBC.com, Lugar spokesman Andy Fisher "says the speech does not mean Lugar would switch his vote on the war or embrace Democratic measures setting a deadline for troop withdrawals."

All three statements are rather vague and do little to suggest how either Senator will vote on any substantive measure which might be introduced this autumn to end Gulf War II.
And certainly nothing about redeployment of troops in the region to combat Al-Quaeda, a critical failure considering the Administration's lack of concern with any of the terrorist organization's members outside of Iraq.
We already know from Ron Suskind in The One Percent Doctrine that George W. Bush let Osama bin Laden get out of Tora Bora in late 2001. According to The Left Coaster.com, the CIA official managing the Afghanistan campaign in the wake of the 9/11/01 attacks brought a detailed map to the President and Dick Cheney along with the message that the Pakistan army and pro-U.S. Afghan militias assigned to nail bin Laden were incapable of doing so. The official, Henry A. Crumpton, stated that American forces were required to capture the terrorist, but Bush declined to follow the advice.
Now we learn from Steve Benen of Political Animal of further incompetence of the President in pursuing the "War on Terror." In the first Bush-Kerry debate of 2004, Mr. Bush boasted "We busted the A.Q. Khan network. This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling secrets to places like North Korea and Libya." Bush actually had agreed to a deal in which Khan had "been slapped on the wrist" by Pakistani officials and now is "virtually a free citizen."
So the Administration continues to emphasize the threat that al Qaeda poses in Iraq- and ignores the threat it poses in Afghanistan and Pakistan, probably with the support of A.Q. Khan and his proliferation business.
The Taliban is reportedly making a comeback in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, we are supplying Pakistan with approximately eighty million dollars a month in counter-terrorism aid, and in September, 2006 the Musharraf regime stikes a deal to cede all control in northwestern Pakistan (where bin Laden is believed to have crossed from Afghanistan) with the tribal warlords.
And what is the bold, dynamic leadership coming from the Grand Old Party? As the words of George Voinovich to President Bush ring out: "I have consistently opposed efforts to limit your powers as our Commander-in-Chief." Pathetic.

Strangers: Giuliani And Foreign Policy

On June 12, 2007 Rudy Giuliani (Mayor, 9/11) issued his "Twelve Commitments to the American People." Rather vague, they say nothing about Iraq. Or Iran. Or Pakistan (to which our government, according to Michael Smerconish, "pays 80 million dollars a month in military reimbursements for its supposed counter-terrorist efforts"). Or Russia and Nato. Or the Palestinian Jewish/Palestinian Arab problem.

But perhaps it's not surprising. As was reported on June 18, 2007 in Newsday, Mr. Giuliani was an original member of the Iraq Study Group, popularly known as the Baker-Hamilton commission. However, after the former mayor missed several meetings (and attended none), Mr. Baker called and asked him to step down if he did not intend to appear more often. Rudy quit the commission, citing other commitments, understandable given that the other commitments garned him $11.4 million in speaking fees in 14 months.

Adored by the mainstream media- which attributes to him national security credentials for being mayor of New York City on 9/11/01- Giuliani still has not gone to Iraq. Or, apparently, expressed a serious opinion about the war, considered everywhere to be the most important issue facing the American electorate and serious Presidential aspirants. Joshua Micah Marshall reports that the former mayor expressed to the New York Times his truly decisive stance on Iraq: "Iraq may get better; Iraq may get worse. We may be successful in Iraq; we may not be."

Rudy Giuliani in the past has exhibited little knowledge about foreign affairs, and still does not.