Today in Pakistan

Chomsky:
~
"Obama's announced 'vision' was to shift forces from Iraq to Afghanistan. That stand evoked a lesson from the editors of the Washington Post: 'While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves.' Increasingly, as Washington has been compelled to accede to Iraqi demands, tales about 'democracy promotion' and other self-congratulatory fables have been shelved in favor of recognition of what had been obvious throughout to all but the most doctrinaire ideologists: that the US would not have invaded if Iraq's exports were asparagus and tomatoes and the world's major energy resources were in the South Pacific.
~
The NATO command is also coming to recognize reality publicly. In June 2007, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer informed a meeting of NATO members that 'NATO troops have to guard pipelines that transport oil and gas that is directed for the West,' and more generally to protect sea routes used by tankers and other 'crucial infrastructure' of the energy system. That is the true meaning of the fabled 'responsibility to protect.' Presumably the task includes the projected $7.6-billion TAPI pipeline that would deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India, running through Afghan's Kandahar province, where Canadian troops are deployed. The goal is 'to block a competing pipeline that would bring gas to Pakistan and India from Iran' and to 'diminish Russia's dominance of Central Asian energy exports,' the Toronto Globe and Mail reported, plausibly outlining some of the contours of the new 'Great Game.'"
~
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20081125.htm

Ah, the irony--those darned pesky Saudi-funded madrassas!
~
Chomsky, same piece:
~
"Pakistan developed nuclear weapons, outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), thanks in no small measure to Ronald Reagan, who pretended not to see what his ally was doing. This was one element of Reagan's 'unstinting support' for the 'ruthless and vindictive' dictator Zia ul-Haq, whose rule had 'the most long-lasting and damaging effect on Pakistani society, one still prevalent today,' the highly respected analyst Ahmed Rashid observes. With Reagan's firm backing, Zia moved to impose 'an ideological Islamic state upon the population.' These are the immediate roots of many of 'today's problems - the militancy of the religious parties, the mushrooming of madrassas and extremist groups, the spread of drug and Kalashnikov culture, and the increase in sectarian violence.'
~
The Reaganites also 'built up the [Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, ISI] into a formidable intelligence agency that ran the political process inside Pakistan while promoting Islamic insurgencies in Kashmir and Central Asia,' Rashid continues. 'This global jihad launched by Zia and Reagan was to sow the seeds of al Qaeda and turn Pakistan into the world center of jihadism for the next two decades.' Meanwhile Reagan's immediate successors left Afghanistan in the hands of the most vicious jihadis, later abandoning it to warlord rule under Rumsfeld's direction. The fearsome ISI continues to play both sides of the street, supporting the resurgent Taliban and simultaneously acceding to some US demands."
~
Personally, I don't think the problem is "fixable." If it is, it must be indigenous in nature, regional at most (i.e. not Anglo-American). Overall, if you're going to be an MIC propagandist, level with Americans about what they're being asked to fix, what the real goals and risks are. Hell, if it's about strategic positioning vis a vis Russia and resource lust, fair enough, but please spare us the free blinders with every post/column. Meaning, despite your position in the vacuum of the MSM (an intellect-free zone), that some honest historical context about how the region's problems came into being would be welcome--not your cherry-picked, narrow view of history.

Holy crud! Did Joe just actually mention the huge, huge, massive role that the Saudis are playing, and have been playing, since the 1970's in the rise of international Islamic extremism?
-
I thought there must be some kind of a gag order or D-notice out about that given the complete and total media blackout on it. Are you also going to mention what a disaster the American efforts to de-stabilize Musharraf's regime and get Bhutto back into the country have been? I'm not ignorant of Musharraf's many faults as a leader, but I'm also aware of what kind of shape the country was in before he took over, how much and how quickly it improved once he did, and how badly the Bhutto family has run Pakistan every time it's had the chance. (yes, I know it's her widower being a corrupt incompetent tool this time, but it's not like we haven't seen this play before.)
-
The single best thing we could do in Afghanistan is to quit pretending its a functional country and cut out Karzai's government as much as possible and deal with the tribes individually when disbursing international funds. When dealing with the Afghan military we should support the ANA as much as possible.
-
This whole effort is Hobbes vs. Kant writ large, and right now the Taliban is playing the Hobbesians (rule of law! yay! sell your drug crop and live and make money! yay!) while Karzai and us are playing the Kants (believe in the corrupt government! it will get better eventually! maybe! yay-ish!)

stop federalizing these countries. You'd need a pretty efficient transportation system, good intra-trade, a good sense of nationalism, and a few other binding principles other than a language in order for this approach to work.
.
although more often than not these people are a more devoted to their religion than our regular big-city dwellers, the primary cause for all the chaos and vulnerability to the taliban and extremist groups is economic. If im not mistaken, until recently, the bad rap on the US was 'economic hegemony', routinely considered as just another type of colonialism. So, we should be more of a facilitator to trade within regions of the country. Localize the help. Have the nation-builders familiarize themselves with the local slang, and have it on a more long to mid term basis like 18 months to 2 years. agrarian help, but don't reject their current practices as archaic, otherwise they'll think you're the enemy. Instead have whatever help you promise as an extension of what they already know.
.
so to cap off,
1. Don't federalize the region. Localize it. Have whatever aid channeled directly to the populations.
.
2. Be more concerned about helping them maximize their resources from their own land, and less about bringing help from abroad. (Global financial collapse wouldn't allow it anyhow).
.
3. Then try to build an economic network amongst the various localities so that they aren't completely isolated from the who nation as a whole. That's how you de-radicalize these regions.

.
Remember, being the most powerful nation of earth means that we're the face of the West. that is, anything foreign that ever befell them. We don't think about it, but we're carrying the heavy baggage of Old Europe's expansionist era. If we can ever diffuse that charge, and unless we let china or india being the first world power, it might be impossible to do so.
.
That should help defuse some of the mistrust and fear of exploitation, economic or otherwise that most of these areas have of us.

Conceptually, I think we have to abandon the old British model of insisting that these countries organize themselves like we are in order to have the appropriate people with titles to attend meetings, dinner parties, and the like. Instead we need to build a compatible, more tribal interface on our side. Our institutional forms, in other words, should model those of the people we are dealing with, rather than insisting on the reverse, which has never worked and is culturally impossible.

There are really three problems: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the unruled 'border' area created by the feckless Brits to serve their interests in India oh so long ago. The problems of the two states are in many ways easy to solve, if we just stop our and their corruption and work with the people as they are... some of the ideas here around offering alternative education to Pakistanis... for example, the type that will provide for real jobs other than issuing fatwas... would make sense.

The trick is what to do about that border area, given that neither states has the resources organizationally or otherwise to take control of their portion the way a Western government would. It says here that there are really only two alternatives: colonize it (incredibly expensive and imperialist, but it could work) or isolate it. I vote pragmatically for the latter. That means from both the Afghan and Pakistan sides, the international community (including interested neighbors such as China and Iran as well as NATO and Russia and the US) declare it off limits, a no-person's land, and institute a sort of Prime Directive. Anyone can go there, but it takes a lot of well checked paperwork to get out. All outside communication such as by cell phone etc. is cut off. No aid in, no agitators or mullahs or terrorists out. If and when we get any good intelligence (because we would have spies in there, and surveillance and so on) we do surgical special forces strikes, then get out. At some point the natives either are content to live that way, or decide they want to join the modern, stateful world. The point being that we need to accept and even use the fact that it is not under any governmental control nor is it likely to be in the foreseeable, affordable, ethical future.

No applause, just throw money;-).

The public will of the population of the Swat region is at the center of all efforts, and it should be taken into account while debating the merits of this agreement.”
.
The Taliban was trying to take advantage of the local movement and desire for a judicial system.
.
It would appear that our enemies understand well the 'carrot and stick' approach. Remove the legitimate leaders by terror tactics and then offer needed services in their absence. Think of the difference if we had approached the Afghani conflict with 150,000 troops instead of 10,000.

There are no good ideas, only least bad ones.
_
The smart thing to do is "but out" -- basically, islamic radicalism is far less of a threat to the US than it is to European democracies and Islamic nations, and they are in the best position to take the lead in dealing with groups like the Taliban. The US should concentrate on intelligence gathering, and in specific instances aiding the nations who act against the Taliban in their own interests (and that would include Iran).

_

Here is a new idea, how about stopping the recruitment of new "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" by getting the troops out of countries that don't belong to them.

I haven't got any answers for Afghanistan; I am dimly aware of a view that sending more troops might not work well. But your willingness to interact with commenters is very, very much appreciated. Ask about the GOP in Congress or the AL East, and I'll have some more thoughts.

"I asked readers--without irony or disdain, by the way, just pure curiosity--for their ideas about how to proceed in Afghanistan."
.
Really? Is that how you asked? By setting up your question with strawman points? That's how I remember it Joe. But then again you constantly reinvent you own personal history. It like a sickness.

If the US could work to defuse relations with Iran we may be able to find a partner for co-operative work in Afghanistan. After all an unstable Afghanistan is also a problem for Iran. If we can establish relations with Iran on the basis of some shared interest in dealing with the AlQ elements of the Taliban we may open the way for a dialogue on the N issue. The Indo-Pakistan sore in Kashmir also needs attention. That dispute has tied up thousands of the more capable troops on the Pakistan side, leaving less capable forces on duty in the North west frontier region. In sum: Holbrooke needs to have an Iran/Pakistan/India/Afghanistan summit: with a decided indigenous flavour and not another American solution. Coriander and cumin: not hamburgers.

What plukasiak Says at #7.

Just think of the money and lives that would been saved if in the 1980's the Reagan administration had followed this advice and never established the Central Command. Since its inception the main concern of the command has been "How do we insert ourselves into the Middle East and attempt to impose U.S. logic on the governments in the region."

Can anyone say that this effort has been anything but a failure.

Hey Joe,

I suggest these measures to kick start Afghanistan as a whole:

1) Cordon off the villages, towns and cities. Control the supply line of the people. Starve the insurgents of food, drinking water, etc. Those already in the city should be captured and brought to swift justice - the lack of which provides the vacuum in which Taliban exploits. Create a Judicial system (police, courts, etc.) that will work.

2) Increase patrols along the road, highways, etc. Use drones to track any insurgents who roam around the countryside. Weed out those who plant IEDs and carry out attacks on the population.

The Brits did this in 1960 Malaysia when the country was overrun by communist insurgents from Indonesia. So, they should take the lead in this, while freeing up American troops for battle in Pakistan's tribal area.

The added advantage of 1) and 2) is that they would give a chance for an international effort to rebuild the country in relative peace:

3) This is where NGOs could help. They could hire locals to build schools, hospitals - providing income which they could then save and start their own business in the future. A forerunner of a modern Afghanistan economy, if you will.

4)As for the poppy fields, if the Pentagon applies the above strategy, NGOs should then start providing local farmers MICRO-CREDITS, which would be used to purchase modern farming equipment. Their produce could be sold locally or to other towns and villages, provided access to the outside world is secured.

These are simple steps. The complexities of Afghanistan is immense, I know. But the Pentagon has to start somewhere!

And, of course, we have the blabbermouth Dianne Feinstein helping the cause: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/16/did-blabbermouth-feinstein-spill-secrets/

Of course, this is not that woman's first time in the rodeo, this stupid woman spilled confidential secrets on the Richard Ramirez (Night Stalker) case and hindered the investigation.

Barack Obama said that we don't have two sets of standards any more. Well, guess what, a military officer would be punished for spilling secrets, even if those secrets were in the Washington Post. Will Dianne Feinstein get a free pass? I am guessing she will.

So much for Obama's statement.

http://www.games4play.net for online games and tv. try it!

vwww.games4play.net for online games and tv. try it!

Madrassa?
Isn't that another name for religious schools - or Sunday school for the youth?
Let us lead by example: Close all madrassa in USA ...
[Oh, I forgot the password: Our religion (of the murderous KKK-type 'hateful ideology') is better than their religion (of the AlQueda-type 'hateful ideology'), right?]

" .. I'm still open to any new ideas you might have..."

Really? Who - Joe Klein?
And the sky is not falling?
Where is the catch?

How about this: I'm still open to any new ideas you might have... as long as they predicate the supremacy of the Jewish state.

" .. This is terrible news. The Pakistani government has essentially given control of the Swat Valley to the Taliban. .."
We say that Pakistan is a sovereign country. Or is it as 'sovereign' as Iraq is today?

What should be our stand regarding the unfettered activities of the ultra-nationalist cliques in the Israel that is beholden to the beleaguered and impoverished American taxpayer - who has essentially no say in the matter?

Joe Klein:
.
Thank you sincerely for your engagement with commentary; it can be quite productive if done well.
.
I'm beginning to think that this question is inexplicably taboo for you, Joe Klein, but that is all the more reason to ask it again anyway:
.
With respect to the continued US occupation of Afghanistan,
.
What are its goals, and what are the realistic costs vs proposed benefits, listed in order of their likelihood?

"... that the US would not have invaded if Iraq's exports were asparagus and tomatoes and the world's major energy resources were in the South Pacific."
.
Ya think, Dinozo??
.
I really wonder how many people REALLY don't see this. My gut feeling is that many more truly understand this to be true without being willing to explicitly admit it to others.
.
The scary thing may be that many on the right accept it as true but see nothing wrong with it as a policy.

There is very good reporting from Swat here:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KA31Df01.html

It makes very clear Joe's observation that Pakistan is incompetent in governing these areas and throws in corruption to boot. Its not a big surprise that the Taliban are successful in laces like this.

As readers of Time-CNN-Jazeera are aware, this IS no Time to secure the nukes in Pakiland, or to put a muzzle on the Clixon Lieberry's flaming foaming denials of their easy money mortgage mess -- because Comrade Teehee has a Truth Squad to run.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090217/us_time/08599187981000

We have no business securing the nukes in Pakiland, since the Truth Squad will eclipse all else Obama for the next long, slow, deceptive 4 Year Plan of pandering and burrisisms at Rahm-Blago Inc.

= DOW 5000 ACCOMPLISHED =

Another boffo week kicks off for Team Skippy:

+ PAKI NUKES UP FOR GRABS

+ DOW TANKING

+ CLIXONS YAPPING

+ BURRIS PERJURING

+ TEEHEE TRUTH SQUATTING

And you thought the Carter years were cruel.

= 1979 ACCOMPLISHED =

As for point 1, sure, buy the opium crop--but you're going to have to fight the Taliban and assorted drug lords for the right to do that.
.
Well, that's pretty much what we're there for, and at least that way we could be providing income to the farmers instead of the Taliban.
.
OR, and here's a crazy notion, we buy the opium FROM the drug lords, making them our friends and denying it to the Taliban. Would that be workable in any fashion?

.
1. Focus on intelligence that allows the US to counteract security threats before they leave the region.
.
2. (related) Know where every gram of Pakistani nuclear material is at all times.
.
3. Act forcefully when #1 and #2 indicate that it is necessary.
.
4. Admit that we can't/won't do what it will take to bring Afghanistan into modern civilization or make the Pakistan government less corrupt.
.
5. Exit the Af/Pak region and work with our allies in Europe to continually fulfill points #1, 2, and 3.

Liberal voters handed the Taliban a major victory in November 2008, and the rewards are already being reaped in early 2009.

We are in for 4 years of Clixonian cajoling, countenancing, correcting, and incompetence.

Move On indeed.