Mr Obama's War: The Fantasy of the Pakistan Sanctuaries

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had two tasks for his interview with David Gregory on Meet the Press. First, he had to pitch the Iraq plan announced by President Obama on Friday. Then he had to get to the core of the Afghanistan strategy, which apparently is not in Afghanistan. Asked "what worries you most?", he replied:

I think it’s the safe havens on the Pakistani side of the border not just for Al Qaida, but for the Taliban, for the Haqqani network, for Gulbaddin Hekmatyar and these other affiliated groups that are all working together. They’re into -- they’re separate groups, but they’re all working together.
And I think as long as they have a safe haven to operate there, it’s going to be a problem for us in Afghanistan. After all, 20 years ago I was on the other side of that border as deputy director of CIA fighting the Soviets, and we had the safe haven in Pakistan. And let me tell you, it c.

Consider that for a moment: yesterday's mujihadeen, good guys supported by the US from the Pakistan "sanctuary", are simply reconfigured today's "Taliban" bad guys, supported by other bad guys in the Pakistan "sanctuary".

But, more importantly, consider Gates' fantasy construction: the US can eliminate that sanctuary, purely as a supporting element in the fight in Afghanistan --- there are no consequences whatsoever for the internal Pakistani situation. When Gregory asked, "the trouble and consequences of jihadists making significant gains in either Afghanistan or Pakistan is perhaps more acute in Pakistan given its nuclear potential. True?", Gates ran away from the Pakistani side of the question:

Well, as long as we’re in Afghanistan and as long as the Afghan government has the support of dozens and dozens of countries who are providing military support, civilian support in addition to us, we are providing a level of stability in Afghanistan that at least prevents it from being a safe haven from which plots against the United States and the Europeans and others can be, can be put together.

This isn't a wordgame. The longer the US maintains the missile-supported myth that it can intervene in northwestern Pakistan merely as part of military strategy in Afghanistan, the more local events will overtake the Americans, presenting them with new political challenges.

Al Jazeera reported yesterday, "Sufi Muhammad, the Muslim cleric acting as a peacemaker in northwestern Pakistan's restive Swat valley, has threatened to launch fresh protests unless Islamic courts are established in the region within two weeks." Insurgents in Swat abducted a district commander of the paramilitary Frontier Corps and four of his troops and attacked a military vehicle transporting sick troops.

On this site last week, Josh Mull posted an excellent analysis on the intricacies of the insurgencies in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and the links between the two situations. He concluded, "What we are witnessing is a long-term, wide-ranging strategy of creating international legitimacy and political credibility for an escalation of violence by the US, Pakistan, and NATO against religious and tribal insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Gates proved Mull right yesterday. But, beyond the US manoeuvres, northwestern Pakistan isn't just a "sanctuary". It is part of a country in which, right now, there is a complex political struggle taking place. Reducing local elements in that struggle to Taliban-supporting pawns is just as dangerous as reducing them to mujahideen-supporting pawns in the 1980s.

Consider for a moment, because Robert Gates didn't yesterday: after "the big difference" of the safe haven which helped eject the Soviets from Afghanistan...

What came next?

Mr Obama's War: US Missile Strikes in Pakistan

US "drone" warplanes have fired at least two missiles on a house in South Waziristan near the Afghan border. Seven people have reportedly been killed.

UPDATE: Barack Obama is Hitler (This Time They're Serious)

Less than 24 hours after we had a bit of fun with Conservapedia and other talking heads who were convinced that the 44th President of the USA was 1) Mullah Barack 2) the Antichrist 3) the leader of the Third Reich, this comes in from a Mr Kevin McCullough at TownHall.com, the sanctuary of level-headed political observers like Ann Coulter:

Obama as Hitler

This week President Obama exercised for the first time a policy decision that shares a trait held in common with Adolf Hitler....

President Obama is moving policy on public health into the direction of doctors being forced to act against their conscience....
President Obama wants them performing abortions, whether they believe it to be an immoral thing or not. And while the comparisons to Hitler are made either on eugenist or racist grounds--but you cannot escape the impact.

In the 1930's and 40's as Hitler wished to use his captive “lesser-humans” for "experiments" in his final solution. He too forced doctors to do things they did not wish to do. Everything from injecting living humans with horrible chemicals to see the effect, to trying differing grades of poisonous gases in what eventually became death chambers. These doctors, who were purveyors of those things that helped save lives, were suddenly forced to use the medical knowledge they had of death--to end them.

In today’s scenario Obama wants doctors to exterminate “lesser humans” for the purpose of immediate solutions to his social experiment. And he wishes them to do so regardless of whether or not they are compelled by the higher call of morality on an individual basis.

Put another way Obama's policy shift would be the equivalent of forcing those who believed slavery to be immoral and never even owned slaves, to begin purchasing them, beating them, raping them, and exploiting them.

Next Week: Barack Obama is Josef Stalin.

The Latest on Israel-Palestine: Lull Before the Diplomatic Flurry? (1 March)

Update: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has warned of "a sharp, painful, and strong respone" if the firing of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel does not stop. Nine rockets were launched this weekend.

On the eve of the Gaza donors' conference, which is more of a political dance than a significant effort to rebuild the area, and the tour of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (pictured) of the Middle East, there are a lot of meetings for show but no substance...yet.

After the Cairo discussions on Palestinian "reconciliation", including Hamas and Fatah delegations, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has tried to re-seize the initiative with a declaration that all aid for Gaza must go through his organisation. It is a call that may be supported by the donors' conference --- European Union representative Javier Solana immediately pledged allegiance after seeing Abbas on Saturday, "I would like to insist in agreement with the president that the mechanism used to deploy the money is the one that represents the Palestinian Authority."

In Palestine, however, Abbas' declaration may have little significance unless the Palestinian Authority can shore up its ebbing support in Gaza and, indeed, the West Bank. And that in turn probably rests upon some significant Israeli concession to allow goods and materials into the Strip.

Abbas supported his power play with a declaration that any Palestinian unity government must recognise Israel. Hamas in turn refused any recognition in advance of negotiations with Tel Aviv on other issues. "We reject any pre-conditions in the formation of the unity government. Hamas will never accept a unity government that recognizes Israel," said its spokesman Ayman Taha.

Abbas's statements follow his meeting on Friday with US envoy George Mitchell. The American gave away little on Washington's position in advance of Hillary Clinton's visit.

More intriguingly, Ha'aretz has reported US military assurances to Israel in advance of any negotiations. The head of US European Command, General John Craddock, met Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli military commanders to discuss how to improve Israel's missile interception capabilities, not primarily against Hamas but against Iran.

Bobby Jindal Tells Massive Lie, Many Too Busy Laughing At Him To Notice

Scott's analysis this week has, rightly, centred on President Obama's address to Congress. Elsewhere however the buzz has been about what came after, in Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal's pre-taped response. Enduring America may already have scientifically proven that Sarah Palin will be the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 but Jindal's star is rising within the GOP and he's seen in some quarters as a potential challenger to Obama in 2012. So what went wrong for him on Tuesday? And if this speech doesn't kill his career will his lie- about helping a now-dead Sheriff fight bureaucracy to save lives during Hurricane Katrina - do so?

Jindal's canned response has been variously described as hokey, homespun and just plain condescending. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow was left stupefied, briefly losing the power of speech before remarking on the hyporcrisy of a Republican invoking "government failure during Katrina as a model for how to move forward as a country":

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOFcaYljKfc[/youtube]

So far, so bad for Jindal. But the following day bloggers at Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo began to raise doubts about Jindal's story of standing alongside Sheriff Harry Lee, as he announced he'd rather be arrested than prevented from sending out volunteer rescue boats which lacked the correct insurance:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N8U4zVmJPs[/youtube]

The story is false- Jindal's office has admitted that the governor overheard Lee, who died in 2007, telling the story in an interview several days later. Jindal used a story stolen from a dead man as the centrepiece of Tuesday's GOP response, and in ten short minutes the future of the Republican Party became a laughing stock and a liar.