Droning On

While Kenya is the hotbed of the day with respect militant Islamic jihad, Pakistan is still a bigger deal, where Christians are being murdered because, they are Christian.  Suicide bombers have declared war on Christianity. 

The president doesn't care.  The drone attacks continue and the details of Christian deaths in Pakistan are startlingly underplayed, as Christians don't seem to matter if they aren't American.

The Guardian however, has taken note of it.

...Some of the congregation were in bare feet as they filed out of the Anglican church on Sunday morning straight into the blast zone of one of two suicide bombers from a Taliban faction that has vowed to kill non-Muslims until the US cancels its lethal drone strikes in the country.

A day later and a blood-soaked jumble of shoes still lies in a pile on the right-hand side of the tall wooden doors where female worshippers usually congregate.

According to a tally based on information from local officials, 85 people were killed and more than 100 injured, although one doctor who arrived at the scene moments after the blast believes that even more died but their bodies were recovered by relatives before they could be accounted for.

Whatever the number, it was Pakistan's worst attack on Christians, sparking impassioned, country-wide protests.

Christians are a tiny and politically weak minority in Muslim-majority Pakistan who suffer from prejudice and sporadic bouts of mob violence. But Sunday was the first time that bombs had been used to such deadly effect on worshippers.

This is genocide, just like in Syria, but the victims are a persecuted minority and they feel the root cause of the actions of their attackers are American drone attacks. They also have some harsh words for the West in general and the sentiment is not unjust.

"It's not safe for Christians in this country," said Mano Rumalshah, the bishop emeritus of Peshawar, who was standing in the courtyard, comforting sobbing parishioners who clasped his white robes.

"Everyone is ignoring the growing danger to Christians in Muslim-majority countries. The European countries don't give a damn about us."

Um, are we going to war with Pakistan now?

Via Reuters;

NATO helicopters and fighter jets attacked two military outposts in northwest Pakistan Saturday, killing as many as 28 troops and plunging U.S.-Pakistan relations deeper into crisis.

Pakistan shut down NATO supply routes into Afghanistan - used for sending in nearly half of the alliance's land shipments - in retaliation for the worst such incident since Islamabad uneasily allied itself with Washington following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Islamabad also said it had ordered the United States to vacate a drone base in the country, but a senior U.S. official said Washington had received no such request and noted that Pakistan had made similar eviction threats in the past, without following through.

NATO and U.S. officials expressed regret about the deaths of the Pakistani soldiers, indicating the attack may have been an error; but the exact circumstances remained unclear.

The president could be strong and tell Afghanistan that the attack was an accident, and demand they re-open the supply routes.  Or president Obama could just accelerate the withdrawal from Afghanistan, get out of dodge, apologize, and let the region descend further into anarchy.  The real question that is going to be asked in the White House, is this; what course of action makes Obama look best in the 2012 election?

War with Pakistan? And therefore Afghanistan as well (remember what Karzai said) will be an enemy again?  There really isn't a good way out of this.  The one area Obama has a bit of momentum is on national security (killing Bin Laden and following up with everyone they found on his computer), that advantage for 2012 may disappear as a result of this accident.  That may drive the decisioning here, and that's not good.

GOP foreign policy debate: No real winner

In the first hour of the South Carolina GOP candidates debate, there was no clear winner. In the bonus on-line time, there wasn't much difference. Everyone did well, and as Newt Gingrich pointed out, everyone on that stage would be an improvement over president Obama.  Everyone handled themselves as expected, and there were no real surprises.

Obama's record: Taliban victory is a symptom

Fox News is reporting another attack on NATO forces in Afghanistan. Kabul is the location of the latest attack, which seems to be part of a Taliban ramping up of efforts on the heels of the Iraq pullout and ongoing Afghanistan troop draw down.

Afghanistan -- A U.S. official says all 13 NATO service members killed in a suicide bombing in the Afghan capital were American troops.

The Taliban is going to win the PR war.  Democrats constantly banged the drum that Bush failed to win the peace. Aside from being in the right place at the right time to kill Osama Bin Laden, president Obama has not done anything substantive to win the peace.  What's worse, is the fact that leading up to the eventual withdrawal  of U.S. and NATO forces, the Taliban is winning the PR war.  They'll eventually be able to claim (erroneously) that they drove the U.S. out.  It will create fear in the Afghan population.  They could bulldoze their way back into power.  They likely will.

It's symptomatic of a very large problem. Cluelessness.

Pakistani Bombers Tipped Off

From the Sydney Morning Herald;

FOR the second time this month, bomb-making factories in Pakistan were evacuated shortly after US officials notified Pakistani security forces of their existence, fuelling suspicions this intelligence is being shared with insurgents.

The disclosure prompted senior members of Congress to accuse Pakistan of playing a double game by aiding the US on some counterterrorism operations while also maintaining ties to extremist organisations operating from its territory.

In case you were not aware, Pakistan is not a solid ally of the United States.  This from a country that has received billions in aid from the United States in exchange for aid in combating terrorism.  The U.S. government is not getting its money's worth.

Two Word Opinions

I'm trying to work on a couple of longer posts right now.  Between those and being busy in my day job, posting has been a little slower than I like.  There's a bunch of things to post on that would be great to discuss if I had the time.  However, with the limited time available let me instead rattle off a bunch of  dismissive two word opinions about some topics that may (or may not) deserve longer than I've allocated.  Two words typically don't do a topic justice and are obviously oversimplified.  But they can be fun.

Arnold Schwarzenegger marital issues - Doesn't matter.

Oil prices below $100 - Temporary Dip.

Michelle Bachmann - Go girl.

Ron Paul - Can''t win

Newt Gingrich - Jumped shark.

Socialist IMF head in rape scandal - Scum bag.

Medvedev cold war talk - bring it.

Debt Ceiling - Debt CEILING!

Pakistan - play hardball.

Potatoes banned in schools? - Soma instead?

NLRB dictating to Boeing - Back off!

Obama the tough?

Is Obama already in pre-election mode? Is Obama the apologist now Obama the tough? Or at least trying to be? Think about what has happened over the last month in foreign affairs. No peace brokering between Israel and Palestinians. It has swung 180 degrees from that type of talk from the White House to an invasion of Libya and the killing of Bin Laden.

Has someone in the White House looked at some polling data and decided to boost Obama's foreign policy credibility? Is the calculus that Obama seems too much like Alan Alda and not enough like Iron Man?  If this Obama the tough is meant to shore up some moderates (read - the not paying attention crowd) then it may have some small effect. And if that's the case then is there more to come?

What's Up With Pakistan?

I'm not sure how many people are aware of this but there's been a recent spate of bombings in Pakistan.  Okay, maybe you were aware of that.  But were you aware of the fact that the majority of those terrorist bombings (yes Virginia Obama, there really is terrorism in the world) have targeted police or police training facilities?

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the Lahore attacks, according to one television news report. Two of the three targets -- a Federal Investigation Agency and two police training centers -- had been struck by insurgents before, authorities said.

 Now why would that be?  It would seem that if you are invested in terrorism you are also invested in chaos.  It makes being a terrorist easier if there are fewer police trying to root you out.  The goals of the Taliban and terorist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not short term goals.  They are thinking attrition and continued chaos.  They believe they can win by outlasting American resolve to win.  Judging by the mood in the capitol, they may be right.

Obama Foreign Policy: Debacles

Just a quick recap. Remember a couple of months back, all those media reports about how wonderful Obama's foreign trips and speeches apologizing for America were? In truth it was bad. And now it's gotten worse. Obama's been leveraging his community organizer past to try to organize a world community. He's got his "we're all in this together" philosophy and he's trying to share it with Hamas and Chavez, and Ahmadinejad and others.

The problem is - we aren't all in this together. There are those who would gladly see the US destroyed, or Israel wiped off the map. That is not together-hood. The do not see a chance for reconciliation - they see weakness and reluctance, and they are taking advantage of it.

Let's do a little exercise in comparing Obama then to Obama now.

THEN:

(Just a sample)

-We've got to close Guantanamo

-Saying during the apology tour, that the US has committed acts of arrogance

-We should not have gone into Iraq

-We need to go further in Afghanistan

-Not following the proper etiquette with the Queen of England

-Bowing before the King of Saudi Arabia

-A feeble response to North Korean nuclear tests and rocket tests

-Joe Biden will be my foreign policy guy

AND NOW:

-Thugocracy in Iran killing protesters in the streets and a weak response from the leader of the free world
-North Korea missiles aimed at Hawaii and they're threatening to harm the US if attacked (including apparently, having the sanctions enforced while they try to sell illegal arms to others).

-Chinese ships playing chicken with American ships.

-China and Russia trying to take the US dollar off the world stage as the world's currency reserve.

-Al Qaida admitting they would use nuclear weapons on the US if they could just get their hands on them in Pakistan

Guess what Mr. President, it's a dirty world and there are same bad, bad people out there who don't have your country's best interests at heart. To call your foreign policy anything other than a debacle would be being generous.

Let's do another quick compare and contrast:

-Bush managed to free Iraq from the oppression of Saddam Hussein. Obama's premature withdrawal has sparked an uptick in violent action in the country

-Bush removed the Al Qaida supporting Taliban from power in Afghanistan, Obama's going to try a surge to prevent them from regaining power in the region, in this case by taking parts of Pakistan and their nuclear weapons.

-Bush tried to broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians. Obama is trying to dictate the conditions to it's ally.

-Bush kept Americans safe from attack after 9/11 for over 7 years. Obama has done so for 5 months. So far so good, but it's got a long way to go to prove his approach will be effective as President Bush's approach actually was.

Those who had derided Bush's foreign policy stance as arrogant or 'cowboy diplomacy' can not argue with the relative successes of Bush compared to Obama. And the excuse that Obama inherited a mess won't wash - EVERY President has inherited a very difficult and often dangerous foreign relations situation because the world is a dangerous place; always was, always will be.

To try to not take ownership 5 years in is no longer acceptable. You won the job Mr. President, the responsibilities are yours now. So just do your job and stop the PR tour, stop the blame game. Just do your job.

Mumbai - more analysis

In light of the recent terror attacks in Mumbai, it seemed possible that the United States could turn the problem into a renewed relationship opportunity with India. Given the timing and the impracticality of action during a lame-duck presidency, the opportunity may have been missed. Condoleeza Rice has demanded that Pakistan come clean and co-operate. Or else? Not much. There's no carrot, and no real stick in play here. And consequently, the U.S. offers little to India that India cannot get elsewhere and more to it's advantage. Meanwhile Pakistan has gone back to the path of denial. And now InterPressService is reporting that India is seeking support from China in dealing with Pakistan.

According to sources, Mukherjee has conveyed New Delhi's dissatisfaction to Washington.

"With six American citizens killed in the Mumbai attack, we expected that Washington would apply effective pressure on the Pakistani military,’’ Uday Bhaskar, leading strategic analyst and former deputy director of the Indian ministry of defence -funded Institute of Defence Studies
and Analysis.

"That Washington could not act beyond a point proves that the U.S. dependency on the Pakistani military for the safety of its supply convoys to support its troops in Afghanistan is a greater priority,’’ Bhaskar said. ‘’There is "an understanding on both sides that there are limits to the extent to which the U.S. can prevail upon the Pakistani military to deliver apropos of
terrorism.’’

So an opportunity has been squandered. At least in the short term, since I'm sure there's more the United States government could do in the region that would be of more benefit to India. And there is urgent reason to do so. The Cato Institute in an article from the Dallas Morning News, touches on the implications of reliance on Pakistan.

After months of increased attacks on supply trucks, U.S. and NATO officials are scrambling for alternative routes to sustain its forces in land-locked Afghanistan. Today, three-quarters of NATO provisions bound for Afghanistan must travel through the deteriorating security environment in neighboring Pakistan. If U.S. and NATO leaders intend to establish new routes
for the mission, they will have to make concessions to surrounding countries including Iran and Russia.

...

For the time being, the U.S. and NATO will have to rely on Pakistan. America's foreign policy in the region remains hostage to events in that increasingly unstable country. Washington would be wise to take steps immediately to repair relations with either Tehran or Moscow if it wishes to have another feasible option for sustaining the Afghanistan mission.

Stemming the rising tide of violence in Afghanistan is crucial to America's "war on terror." Success requires the ability to supply U.S. and NATO forces in that country, which in turn, requires the wisdom to engage in effective diplomacy with key powers, especially Iran and Russia.

Clearly the alternatives are unsustainable. Iran, Russia? Not good bets. Being able to leverage forward bases in India would be a way to mitigate the problem, but it requires considering their interest instead of just America's - the relationship has to be mutually beneficial. As it could be.

Instead, it appears India will look elsewhere for support, a supporter of Pakistan in the Kashmir dispute, and a competitor to the US on the world stage. Not a good triangulation for the US or India. For the US this seems like a lose, lose, lose scenario. They lose a potential relationship builder with India, they lose the opportunity to open a new forward supply station for Afghanistan-based troops and they drive a potential ally towards a potential economic and military threat. There's triangulation worth working around.

Mumbai Terror - Threat and Opportunity

Yet another terrorist attack, yet again not on US soil, and yet again evidence that vigilance is imperative. What will the Bush and/or Obama Administrations do as a result? So far President Bush has offered condolences, and may be, at least publicly reticent to do more, given the dwindling time in office and the self-righteous Obama "Office of the President Elect" being the real power center since the election. Obama has similarly condemned the attacks and indicated it would not destroy Indian democracy. But far more needs to be done. The horrible attacks represent both a threat and opportunity to the War on Terror.

The Bush Administration's approach to Afghanistan has been to work with Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. While this may have spawned early success, it has clearly gone beyond the point of diminishing returns. With the increased level of unmanned aerial attacks, it's clear that the CIA, at least, has realized the limits of this approach and is exploring new ways of dealing with the problem of radical Muslim terrorism in the region.



With the terrible terrorist attacks on Mumbai, a new variable has been thrown into the equation. Some in India are angrily calling for war with Pakistan. Such a war would undoubtedly escalate into something larger, including the disputed Kashmir and Northern Areas.

This may be where the opportunity lies for the U.S. Of course no one outside the intelligence community is privy to the level of co-operation between the U.S. and India, but given that the focus has been a tactical alliance with Pakistan, my guess is that the connection with India has at a minimum been weakened. There are a myriad of opportunities available for the U.S. They could act as a peace broker between the two nations, fostering some goodwill in the process. They could take the opportunity to greatly strengthen ties with India. That would serve not only as a potential base of operations if Pakistan falters in it's support, but also, strengthened ties and a strengthened India (with respect to intelligence, trade, security, military and economically) would provide a regional counterbalance to the threat of an aggressive China. In the event of a war in the Kashmir and Northern Areas, supporting India might provide further opportunity to ferret out Bin Laden, in another area he could be in hiding.

Of course there a number of threats in these scenarios as well - a regional conflict may drag the Chinese into the Kashmir territory dispute. Another war front is simply unaffordable, especially during a recession. America may be forced to stand on the sidelines and the outcome would probably not be to their liking. Not gaining Indian support and losing support in Pakistan would severely impede operations in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is 1 1/2 times the size of Iraq, with 116% of Iraq's population, much less hospital terrain and about 20% of the amount of paved roads. Creating a stable Afghanistan has massive logistical problems as it is, losing a base of operations like Pakistan would pose incredible challenges. Even if India were to offer an opportunity along those lines, it would be exponentially more difficult logistically, given the distance between the base of operations and the area of operations. The remaining scenario is ramping up in Afghanistan to levels greater than in Iraq if the job is to get done properly. Given the geographic obstacles, the dangers to U.S. troops would be quite great.

If a regional conflict were to occur, Russian action might also be a possibility. It's a situation that could very quickly spiral out of control, and one where the U.S. is not in the best position to achieve it's regional objectives.

The United States is currently holding a weak hand at the table in many respects. It cannot finance further activity, it cannot rely on continued support from Pakistan in light of the Mumbai attacks, and recent comments from Pakistani military officials. Really negotiation and peace brokering are it's only options at this point, which are also weakened because the others at the table will know that the American 'big stick' isn't in play. The terror attacks in Mumbai are tragic, but they also represent a minefield that needs to be negotiated very skillfully if the United States wants to accomplish anything positive, or even avoid a possible flash point of a new threat to regional stability.