US surge plays into Taliban hands

The war in Afghanistan was never winnable. What was doable, was Senator Kerry's 2004 Campaign idea of a police action against Al Qaeda.

Asia Times Online

Image via Wikipedia

"The jihadi war room is now aware that the administration has narrowed its scope to defeat the so-called al-Qaeda organization, limiting its goal to depriving the Taliban from achieving full victory - ie depriving them of 'the momentum'. In strategic wording, this means that the administration won't give the time and the means, let alone the necessary long-term commitment, to fully defeat the Taliban as a militia and militant network."

The jihadi strategists now understand that Washington's advisers still recommend talking to the Taliban, the entire Taliban, but only after the latter feels weak and pushed back enough to seek such talks. Underneath this perception, the Salafi Islamists' analysts realize that present American analysis concludes that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are two different things, and that it is possible to defeat the first and eventually engage the second.

Such a jihadi understanding of the US's defective perceptions will give the Taliban and al-Qaeda a first advantage: knowing that your enemy, the United States, isn't seeing you as you really are.

Strategic engagement
The US has reconfirmed that the goal of the mission in Afghanistan is to destroy al-Qaeda and train the Afghan armed forces, but not to engage in nation-building. Unlike previous American commitments, which weren't very successful anyway, the current strategy officially ignores the ideological battle.

Hence the Taliban understand that their lifeline to further recruitment based on madrassa (seminary) graduates is wide open. Washington's efforts and dollars won't touch the ideological factory of jihadism, which is the strategic depth of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Hence, the jihadi network in Afghanistan will continue and further develop its indoctrination structures, untouched and unbothered by American military escalation. US Marines and other NATO allies will be fighting today's Taliban, while tomorrow's jihadis will be receiving their instruction in full tranquility.

By the time the US deadline to withdraw is reached, in 2011, 2012 or even beyond, the future forces of the enemy will be ready to be deployed. One wave of terrorists will be weakened by the action of the US and NATO armed forces, while the next wave will be prepared to take over later.

Deadly deadline
The administration's plan included a timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan (although reinterpreted as the beginning of withdrawal). Basing their assessment on the notion of "no open-ended engagement", the shapers of the new Afghanistan strategy have told the enemy's war room on camera that America's time in Afghanistan is until 2013 maximum, after which it will be Taliban time again.

As many analysts have concluded, all the jihadis war planners have to do is to wait out the hurricane of escalation. The deadly deadline proposed in the strategy has no precedent in the history of confrontation with totalitarian forces. The Taliban have already waited out eight years; what are two, three or eight more years, if the US-led coalition's action is not qualitatively (not just quantitatively) different?

As presented to the Afghan people, the administration's new plan for the battlefield is seen as a last surge before the general exit of the country. The Taliban's war room has understood the equation. Thirty thousand more US troops will deploy with their heavy equipment, backed by another 5,000 to 10,000 allied forces. Offensives will take place in southern Helmand province and other areas. Special forces will move to multiple places and shelling will harass the Islamist militias for as long as two years or more.

The Taliban will incur losses and al-Qaeda's operatives will be put under heavier pressure: all that is noted in Taliban leader Mullah Omar's book and saved on the laptop of al-Qaeda's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Then what?

Then the time for exit arrives, and US and NATO forces begin their withdrawal. When that happens, the surviving Taliban, plus the new wave just graduating from madrassas, or the jihadi volunteers sent from the four corners of the virtual "caliphate", will have a choice to make: either they will accept the US negotiators' offer to join the Afghan government or - depending on their assessment then - reject the offer and shell the "infidel troops" as they pull out.
In a nutshell, the new strategy is convenient to the Taliban war room: they now can figure it all out until the Mayan year of 2012 - and way beyond.

All that it takes for democracies to offer the totalitarians victories is to not understand the latter's long-term goals. And the US has just done that, so far.

Dr Walid Phares is director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

(Copyright 2009 Walid Phares.)

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.S. Training Commander Reports Burst in Afghan Recruiting (nytimes.com)
• Obama: Afghanistan troop drawdown schedule is firm (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• McChrystal: Taliban ranks weakening (cnn.com)
• Getting bin Laden 'critical' (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Petraeus warns new surge progress will be slow (msnbc.msn.com)
• Winning hearts and wallets in Afghanistan (cnn.com)

Saudi: Airstrikes near Yemen targeted infiltrators

The Saudi-Yemen border heats up. The conflict is not between the two countries, but that Yemen can't control it's own border. The two countries share a concern about Shiite insurgents funded by Tehran.

Saudi: Airstrikes near Yemen Targeted Infiltrators:

Image via Wikipedia

"Saudi Arabia said Friday it carried out airstrikes against 'infiltrators' from Yemen that were limited to areas inside Saudi territory, and vowed to press on with the military action until the border with its restive neighbor was secure.

The statement, carried by the official Saudi Press Agency, did not identify the infiltrators or address claims by Arab diplomats on Thursday that the strikes hit across the boundary, targeting Shiite rebels who have been battling Yemeni government forces for the past few months in Yemen's northern Saada province."

The SPA statement stressed the Saudi military action was confined to areas within the kingdom's borders.

In Yemen, however, a military official said Saudi forces on Friday continued to shell rebel positions in Saada. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to journalists.

Regardless of the location of the bombardment, the offensive threatens to embroil Riyadh in a conflict that has for months been a major source of worry for the oil-rich kingdom.

Riyadh has been concerned about a spillover of the Yemeni fighting, of Iran's alleged involvement in the conflict and of the possibility that Yemen-based al-Qaida militants could capitalize on the tense situation by smuggling fighters across the long and difficult-to-control border.

More broadly, it raises concerns of another proxy war in the Middle East between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally.

The Yemeni government has accused Shiite Iran of aiding the rebels while the rebels have accused Sunni Saudi Arabia, Iran's fiercest regional rival, of carrying out bombing runs against them.

The same dynamic has played out in various forms in Lebanon, where Iran supports the Shiite militant Hezbollah and Saudi Arabia favors a U.S.-backed faction, and in Iraq, where Saudi Arabia and Iran have thrown support to conflicting sides in the Sunni-Shiite fault-line.

The Arab diplomats and Yemeni rebels said Saudi fighter jets and artillery bombardments hit across the border into northern Yemen on Thursday - the first reported Saudi incursion into Yemen in years.

The northern rebels, known as Hawthis, have been battling Yemeni government forces the past few months in the latest flare-up of a sporadic five-year conflict. They claim their needs are ignored by a Yemeni government that is increasingly allied with hard-line Sunni fundamentalists, who consider Shiites heretics.

The rebels said the Saudi airstrikes hit five areas in their northern stronghold but it was not possible to independently verify the reports. They said there were dead and wounded and that homes were destroyed. The rebels' spokesman said people were afraid to get near the areas being bombed, making it difficult to count the casualties.

The SPA statement quoted an unidentified Saudi official as saying the Saudi offensive was prompted by an attack Tuesday by infiltrators from Yemen on Saudi border guards in the Mount Dokhan area that killed one Saudi soldier and wounded eleven.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Saudi: Airstrikes near Yemen targeted infiltrators (sfgate.com)
• Saudi Jets Attack Rebel Targets In Yemen (news.sky.com)
• Saudi warplanes bomb Shia rebels in Yemen after border raid (telegraph.co.uk)
• Saudi Forces Hit Yemen Rebels (online.wsj.com)
• Saudis launches offensive against Yemen rebels (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Yemen accuses Iranian 'religious institutions' of backing armed rebellion (telegraph.co.uk)
• Saudi jets and artillery used against Shia rebels in Yemen (guardian.co.uk)

Al-Qaeda's guerrilla chief lays out strategy

While Obama administration debates the fate of the US presence in Afghanistan, the Al Qaeda regional war continues to achieve and expand it's objective. One of it's star field commanders, Mohammad Ilyas Kashmiri, a veteran of the Kashmiri war with India and past darling of Pakistan ISI, invites a reporter to demonstrate his death has been greatly exaggerated. He gives a fascinating explanation of Al Qaeda's regional strategy without giving anything away.

Image via Wikipedia

Pakistan is at critical juncture, with the armed forces gathered in their largest-ever numbers (almost a corps, as many as 60,000 troops) around South Waziristan to flush out the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Taliban (PTT), al-Qaeda and their allies from the Pakistani tribal areas.

In these tense times, Mohammad Ilyas Kashmiri, an al-Qaeda leader who, according to American intelligence is al-Qaeda's head of military operations and whose death they wrongly confirmed in a recent US Predator drone attack in North Waziristan, spoke to Asia Times Online.

He invited this correspondent to a secret hideout in the South Waziristan-Afghanistan border area, where drones regularly fly overhead.

[..]"Saleem! I will draw your attention to the basics of the present war theater and use that to explain the whole strategy of the upcoming battles. Those who planned this battle actually aimed to bring the world's biggest Satan [US] and its allies into this trap and swamp [Afghanistan]. Afghanistan is a unique place in the world where the hunter has all sorts of traps to choose from.

"It might be deserts, rivers, mountains and the urban centers as well. This was the thinking of the planners of this war who were sick and tired of the great Satan's global intrigues and they aim for its demise to make this world a place of peace and justice. However, the great Satan was full of arrogance of its superiority and thought of Afghans as helpless statues who would be hit from all four sides by its war machines, and they would not have the power and capacity to retaliate.

"This was the illusion on which a great alliance of world powers came to Afghanistan, but due to their misplaced conceptions they gradually became trapped in Afghanistan. Today, NATO does not have any significance or relevance. They have lost the war in Afghanistan. Now, when they realized their defeat, they developed an emphasis that this entire battle is being fought from outside of Afghanistan, that is, the two Waziristans. To me, this military thesis is a mirage which has created a complex situation in the region and created reactions and counter-reactions. I would not like to go into the details, to me that was nothing but deviation. As a military commander, the reality is that the trap of Afghanistan is successful and the basic military targets on the ground have been achieved," Ilyas said.

I responded that the relocation of 313 Brigade from Kashmir was itself proof that foreign hands were involved in Afghanistan.

"The entire basis of your argument is wrong, that this war is being fought from outside of Afghanistan. This is just an out-of-context understanding of the whole situation. If you discuss myself and 313 Brigade, I decided to join the Afghan resistance as an individual and I had quite a reason for that. Everybody knows that only a decade ago I was fighting a war of liberation for my homeland Kashmir.

"However, I realized that decades of armed and political struggles could not help to inch forward a resolution of this issue. Nevertheless, East Timor's issue was resolved without losing much time. Why? Because the entire game was in the hands of the great Satan, the USA. Organs like the UN and countries like India and Israel were simply the extension of its resources and that's why there was a failure to resolve the Palestinian issue, the Kashmir issue and the plight of Afghanistan.

"So I and many people all across the world realized that analyzing the situation in any narrow regional political perspective was an incorrect approach. This is a different ball game altogether for which a unified strategy is compulsory. The defeat of American global hegemony is a must if I want the liberation of my homeland Kashmir, and therefore it provided the reasoning for my presence in this war theater.

Ilyas continued, "When I came here I found my step justified; how the world regional powers operate under the umbrella of the great Satan and how they are supportive of its great plans. This can be seen here in Afghanistan." He added that al-Qaeda's regional war strategy, in which they have hit Indian targets, is actually to chop off American strength.

via Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Could Afghanistan Become Obama's Vietnam? (huffingtonpost.com)


• Hakimullah Mehsud: Ruthless New Pakistan Taliban Leader Named (huffingtonpost.com)


• A war in search of a mission (timesunion.com)


• Will Obama abandon Afghanistan? (cbc.ca)


• Pro-Afghan War Officials Play Up Taliban-al Qaida Ties: Analysis (huffingtonpost.com)


• Taliban say they pose no threat to the West (nationalpost.com)


• Obama to shift focus away from Taliban (Guest Voice) (themoderatevoice.com)


• AlQaeda in crisis amid cash shortage (telegraph.co.uk)


• One man's terrorist and State Sponsored Terrorism (citizengkar.wordpress.com)


• Al-Qaida Commanders Killed in U.S. Strikes: Pakistan (abcnews.go.com)

Obama said Wavering on Troop Escalation in Afghanistan

Juan Cole weighs in on the disaster that is Afghanistan. Apparently, Obama is considering a major change in direction, perhaps withdrawing troops instead of adding more. And Biden is leading that charge. Lets hope that Obama figures out that Biden is his foreign policy expert and defers to his judgment. Hillary is just another neo-con.

Image via Wikipedia

The NYT says that President Barack Obama is reconsidering his plan to greatly increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan, and to be suffering "buyer's remorse" for sending 21,000 more troops there soon after his inauguration and before a proper policy review. The article suggests a stark difference of opinion between vice president Joe Biden who has the most foreign policy experience of anyone in the administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Biden is said to favor fewer US troops and a focus on al-Qaeda in the Pakistani badlands. Clinton is afraid the Taliban will take back over Afghanistan and invite al-Qaeda back in there.

[..]You can't do development aid very effectively in a country beset by guerrilla violence. Moreover, counter-insurgency requires a legitimate, effective Afghan partner that can compete with the Taliban and their allies for Afghan hearts and minds. And, if counter-terrorism is really the goal, then you don't need a 60,000-man army in a country notoriously inhospitable to foreign armies.

The Obama administration seems to be considering whether these four levels can be usefully unentangled.

In particular, incumbent president Hamid Karzai's clumsy attempt to steal the election and his continued seeming inability really to take charge in the country he de jure rules, appears to have provoked the Obama team to wonder whether they could in fact work with Karzai.

Personally, I think Biden is right and that if the administration will bet on him, they'd put us 2 or 3 years ahead of the curve.

via Informed Comment: Obama said Wavering on Troop Escalation in Afghanistan

Related articles by Zemanta

• Muslim Khan: Taliban Spokeman Arrested By Pakistani Forces in Swat (huffingtonpost.com)


• Obama praises Afghans for voting (news.bbc.co.uk)


• Counter-insurgency Fights: There's More Than One Approach (windsofchange.net)


• Afghan challenger says election 'widely rigged' (nationalpost.com)


• AP sources: Instead of troops, maybe more drones (seattletimes.nwsource.com)


• White House split over more troops for Afghanistan (telegraph.co.uk)


• US's 'arc of instability' just gets bigger (citizengkar.wordpress.com)


• Taliban's bombs came from US, not Iran (citizengkar.wordpress.com)


• Are the Taliban Beating NATO on Logistics? Why Washington Needs Iran and Russia (citizengkar.wordpress.com)

Are the Taliban Beating NATO on Logistics? Why Washington Needs Iran and Russia

Afghanistan has been invaded and conquered numerous times in the past 4000 years. The various Pashtun tribes have defeated the Soviet army in a 10 year war supported by the US. Paradoxically, after installing a fundamentalist Islamic regime and allowing their long time friend and conduit of money from the west bin Ladin to live and train mujaheddin for the fight in Central Asia. And it was only after 9/11 that the money from the US was cut off.

Strange bedfellows can make for unforeseen outcomes.

Image by Army.mil via Flickr

US Commander in Afghanistan General McChrystal presented a secret report to Defense Sec'y Gates and announced the US must change strategy or lose the war.

The United States and its allies must change strategy and boost cooperation to turn around the war in Afghanistan, the top U.S. and NATO commander there said on Monday, wrapping up a much-anticipated review.

U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal said the situation was "serious" but the 8-year-old war could still be won. He gave no indication if he would ask for more troops but is widely expected to do so in the coming weeks.

With U.S. and NATO casualties at record levels in Afghanistan and doubts growing about the war in the United States and other NATO nations, McChrystal is under pressure to reverse Western fortunes within months.

"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort," McChrystal said in a statement announcing his report was done.

Meanwhile, Juan Cole has the best information on what is actually going on in AfPak.

In Chaman, Dawn reports, "At least 15 oil tankers, trailers and containers caught fire in Chaman on Sunday night after a blast in a vehicle carrying supplies for Nato forces in Afghanistan." The NATO supply vehicle became a sitting duck because the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been closed for the last few days over a dispute about whether Pakistani border guards may search Afghan fruit trucks.

On the Afghan side of the border, militants from the Hizb-i Islami or "Islamic Party" of Gulbadin Hikmatyar "stormed a NATO supply convoy and torched at least 10 vehicles in the troubled eastern province of Kunar," according to Pajhwok News Service.

Meanwhile, the Taliban have used pockets of Pashtun populations in the north of the country as a base to take over three districts that allow them to block supplies coming in from Tajikistan, according to McClatchy.

In any case, the Taliban are obviously attempting to cut the supply routes that allow the US and NATO to keep their troops supplied with ammunition, fuel and food.

the US increasingly depends on Russian good will, and Iran is influential in Herat, Mazar, the Hazarah regions and Kabul. Iran can play a positive role in its two neighboring countries, de facto acting as an ally of the US. Or it could play spoiler.

[..]The United States has been made a hostage to Iran and Russia by George W. Bush's fooling miring of the US military in the midst of 300 million hostile, anti-imperialist Middle Easterners,

[..]Obama's presidency may succeed or flounder on his success in the recondite art of logistics, both in the strict military sense and in a wider metaphorical sense, of putting the right personnel and "assets" in place for political victories.

via Informed Comment: Are the Taliban Surrounding NATO Armies and Cutting them Off?
Why Washington Needs Iran and Russia.

Related articles by Zemanta

• General expects more Marines in Afghanistan (msnbc.msn.com)


• You: Mullen Worried By Declining Support For Afghan War (huffingtonpost.com)


• Afghanistan: "Obama's Vietnam," or America's "War of Necessity?" (themoderatevoice.com)


• American Antiwar Movement Plans an Autumn Campaign Against Policies on Afghanistan (nytimes.com)


• Afghan War Is Serious but Winnable, Top General Says (nytimes.com)


• How to lose in Afghanistan (guardian.co.uk)


• Hakimullah Mehsud: Ruthless New Pakistan Taliban Leader Named (huffingtonpost.com)


• Partial results leave Afghans in limbo (nationalpost.com)


• Troops Attack Clinic After Taliban Checks In (abcnews.go.com)


• Pakistan army kills 45 Taliban; border reopens (ctv.ca)


• Strategy shift needed in Afghanistan: U.S. General (nationalpost.com)


• US Afghan strategy 'not working' (news.bbc.co.uk)


• Vote-rigging, corruption mars Afghan election (nationalpost.com)


• In Pakistan, Taliban Tearing Apart a Culture (abcnews.go.com)


• Afghan Taliban Commander Is Captured in Raid (nytimes.com)


• Bombshell: Bin Laden Worked for US Until 9/11 (citizengkar.wordpress.com)

Bombshell: Bin Laden Worked for US Until 9/11

Image via Wikipedia

It turns out that Reagan's little adventure with bin Ladin in the Middle East continued in Central Asia after the Russians quit Afghanistan. Apparently directed by the CIA, funded by at least in part, heroin sales world wide, this operation continued right up until 9/11. In 1998 after al-Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa that killed a dozen Americans and hundreds of Africans, Bill Clinton sent cruise missles into Afghanistan to attach al Qaeda training camps. That appears now to be a warning to reign in bin Ladin's ambitions beyond Central Asia.

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds dropped a bombshell on the Mike Malloy radio show, guest-hosted by Brad Friedman (audio, partial transcript). In the interview, Sibel says that the US maintained 'intimate relations' with Bin Laden, and the Taliban, "all the way until that day of September 11."

These 'intimate relations' included using Bin Laden for 'operations' in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China. These 'operations' involved using al Qaeda and the Taliban in the same manner "as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict," that is, fighting 'enemies' via proxies.

As Sibel has previously described, and as she reiterates in this latest interview, this process involved using Turkey (with assistance from 'actors from Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia') as a proxy, which in turn used Bin Laden and the Taliban and others as a proxy terrorist army.

Control of Central Asia

The goals of the American 'statesmen' directing these activities included control of Central Asia's vast energy supplies and new markets for military products.

The Americans had a problem, though. They needed to keep their fingerprints off these operations to avoid a) popular revolt in Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan), and b) serious repercussions from China and Russia. They found an ingenious solution: Use their puppet-state Turkey as a proxy, and appeal to both pan-Turkic and pan-Islam sensibilities.

Turkey, a NATO ally, has a lot more credibility in the region than the US and, with the history of the Ottoman Empire, could appeal to pan-Turkic dreams of a wider sphere of influence. The majority of the Central Asian population shares the same heritage, language and religion as the Turks.

In turn, the Turks used the Taliban and al Qaeda, appealing to their dreams of a pan-Islamic caliphate (Presumably. Or maybe the Turks/US just paid very well.)

Accordingto Sibel:

This started more than a decade-long illegal, covert operation in Central Asia by a small group in the US intent on furthering the oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex, using Turkish operatives, Saudi partners and Pakistani allies, furthering this objective in the name of Islam.

Uighurs

Sibel was recently asked to write about the recent situation with the Uighurs in Xinjiang, but she declined, apart from saying that "our fingerprint is all over it."

Of course, Sibel isn't the first or only person to recognize any of this. Eric Margolis, one of the best reporters in the West on matters of Central Asia, stated that the Uighurs in the training camps in Afghanistan up to 2001:

"were being trained by Bin Laden to go and fight the communist Chinese in Xinjiang, and this was not only with the knowledge, but with the support of the CIA, because they thought they might use them if war ever broke out with China."

And also that:

"Afghanistan was not a hotbed of terrorism, these were commando groups, guerrilla groups, being trained for specific purposes in Central Asia."

In a separate interview, Margolis said:

"That illustrates Henry Kissinger's bon mot that the only thing more dangerous than being America's enemy is being an ally, because these people were paid by the CIA, they were armed by the US, these Chinese Muslims from Xinjiang, the most-Western province.

The CIA was going to use them in the event of a war with China, or just to raise hell there, and they were trained and supported out of Afghanistan, some of them with Osama Bin Laden's collaboration. The Americans were up to their ears with this."

more via GlobalResearch.ca

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ryland: A Sibel Edmonds 'Bombshell' - Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Until 9/11 (bradblog.com)


• al Qaeda, Taliban Winning. (warintel.blogspot.com)


• FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Tells of Bribery, Espionage and Cover-up at the Highest Levels of US Government (citizengkar.wordpress.com)

Bush Admin. worse than our Nightmares

Impeach Bush and Cheney, impeach them now!

Image via Wikipedia

Back in the bad old days of Bush's corrupt gang, we on the left were pilloried for suggesting that the administration was manipulating terrorism-related news in order to win the 2004 elections. But when Tom Ridge says it . . .In fact, I argued in summer, 2004, that when Ridge did raise the terrorism alert, it had the unfortunate effect of outing an al-Qaeda double agent who had been turned by the Pakistani government and was helping set a trap for al-Qaeda in the UK. In turn, that caused the British government to have to move against the people it had under surveillance prematurely, harming the case.

[..]The horrible thing is that Wolf Blitzer on CNN assembled David Frum and Frances Townsend, former members of the Bush administration, to sit around on his afternoon news and analysis program on Thursday afternoon and more or less either call Ridge a liar or pooh-pooh the significance of what he is saying. There wasn't a single centrist or left of center voice to show any outrage. I mean, I know that Time Warner is not made up of people who necessarily care about the little person or social justice or anything. But a little bit of shame?

It isn't enough that the corporate media lied to us for Bush for 8 years, they are continuing to do it. Give money to Amy Goodman.

via Informed Comment: Bush Admin. worse than our Nightmares.

Whodunnit in Baghdad

Image via Wikipedia

Juan Cole as usual makes the most sense about the most recent bombings in Baghdad. al-Maliki's refusal to reconcile with Sunni's is coming back to haunt him.

Al-Hayat says that the Iraqi government is blaming an "alliance of Baathists and al-Qaeda" for the bombings. But terrorist cells don't work that way. Six coordinated bombings requires tight-knit and cohesive cells along with close command and control. So it was likely one or the other. Given the military discipline and precision of the operation, I suspect former Baath officers of involvement, regardless of their current ideology, whether secular or religious.

Looked at in this way, the attack on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which was the most massive in firepower, deaths and woundings, was a continuation of the bombings last week of Shabak and Yazidi Kurdish villages outside the northern, largely Sunni Arab city of Mosul. Mosul is a center for Arab nationalism, Baathism, and Sunni fundamentalism.

The Ilaf newspaper agrees with me that these bombings are a sign that elements in the Sunni Arab community are not reconciled to the rise of Shiite and Kurdish rule over Iraq. The problem cannot be solved either by federalism or democracy, the newspaper argues. Iraqi Sunni Arabs would not benefit from any kind of partition, even soft partition, since they don't have any developed hydrocarbon fields in their part of Iraq. And the Iraqi parliament is so far set up with a single chamber where there is a tyranny of the Shiite majority.

So as I have hinted, I have a slight preference for the theory that ex-Baathist or neo-Baathist or generally Sunni Arab nationalists were behind the attacks. A lot of ex-Baathist officers and leaders are hiding out in exile in Damascus.

[..]After all, al-Maliki has already more or less been running for prime minister in the upcoming January elections on the basis of his ability to get the American troops out of people's hair and to supply security in their stead. It is easy for his Sunni Arab foes in Damascus and Mosul to undermine that claim with bombings like those on Wednesday. Al-Maliki has been adamantly against negotiating with the Baathists or, indeed, any guerrilla group with blood on its hands. A portion of the Sunni Arab community let him know Wednesday that they simply will not accept the new status quo. Al-Maliki has surprised a lot of people by being much more assertive and much more successful in restoring security in places like Basra and Amara in the Shiite south, than many expected. But unless he finds a way to reconcile with the Sunni Arabs, his political future is cloudy.

via Informed Comment: Whodunnit in Baghdad.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party loyalists engage with US over Iraq (telegraph.co.uk)

Analysis: The Baghdad attacks

As these analyst make clear, this attack in Baghdad, was against the Maliki government and an attempt to manipulate the election. Certainly this is Al Qaeda's modis operendi, but many others have to gain from this happening.

Mosab Jasim, Al Jazeera English producer in Baghdad

In my experience, getting inside the Green Zone to cover media activity is not easy.

First of all, you have to get at least two or three badges that allow you inside. Then, you have to cross through at least two or three security checkpoints, which are at least 600m outside of the Green Zone. At these checkpoints, you get searched, and after you pass through them, you are allowed on to the street that leads to the Green Zone and, from there, there is a final checkpoint and that's when you've finally arrived.

So it would be really difficult to bring in a truck filled with explosives unless it was co-ordinated from inside the Green Zone. Obtaining a badge means you've gone through all the clearance procedures. The bombers who were able to put the truck inside the area of the Green Zone had gone through all the necessary security measures and once they were cleared, they also received the badges which gave them access into the area.

I spoke to our police source in Baghdad and he was telling me that his sources said an attack would occur every three minutes from each other, exactly timed. He said the attacks had nothing to do with sectarian violence, but that they were something very well organised and co-ordinated.

[..]Ahmed Rushdi, Iraqi journalist in Baghdad

The problem with this government is that its only bonus is the security situation, which means a lot worse goes on in Iraq like corruption, insufficient services.

All these issues show the failure of the government but what happened today sends a very clear message regarding the failure of the security situation in Iraq.

No one knows who was behind these attacks, some say they are inside the ruling coalition and they are opponents of al-Maliki [the Iraqi prime minister], saying that the people who led these attacks did so to prove how poor security is in Iraq.

Al-Maliki simply has too many opponents and the Iraqi people are the ones who must suffer from this the most.

via Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Analysis: The Baghdad attacks.

Related articles by Zemanta

• US troops to return to northern Iraq (telegraph.co.uk)

95 killed on Iraq's deadliest day since U.S. handover

Al Qaeda WANTS the US to stay in Iraq and remain targets. They know blowing up Iraqis will not help them in the long run unless they can spark the Shia-Sunni war they've so far failed to do.

A series of bombings rocked Iraq's capital within one hour Wednesday, killing at least 95 people and wounding 563 others, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official said.

The six explosions marked the country's deadliest day since the United States pulled its combat troops from Iraqi cities and towns nearly two months ago.

In one attack, a truck bomb exploded outside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, damaging the building. Another truck bomb went off outside the Ministry of Finance building.

Near the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Iraqi security forces stood with shocked expressions as ambulances screamed past.

In central Baghdad, a roadside bomb exploded on Kifa Street, and another bomb exploded in the Salhiya neighborhood, where on Tuesday security forces had avoided injuries by successfully defusing a truck bomb. Wednesday's other two bombs exploded in eastern Baghdad's Beirut Square, officials said.

Two people believed to be connected to the bombings have been arrested, an official with the Iraqi army told CNN.

The two suspects were driving in a car rigged with explosives before they were arrested by Iraqi Security Forces, the official said.

The two suspects were believed to be al Qaeda in Iraq senior leaders, the official said.

via 95 killed on Iraq's deadliest day since U.S. handover - CNN.com.

Shiite rebellion in Yemen raises concerns in Saudi Arabia

Evidence of how destabilized the Middle East has become as the result of the Bush debacle continues to emerge.

Saudi Arabia is concerned by the Shiite rebellion taking place just over the border in Yemen, prompting security officials from both countries to consult on the sudden flare-up in violence, Saudi officials said Tuesday. Saudi Arabia, a staunchly Sunni country with the world’s largest oil reserves, is worried about the rebels’ alleged links to Iran, the kingdom’s main regional foe which has established firm footholds in several Arab countries over the past few years. It also fears that Al-Qaeda militants who have sought sanctuary in the impoverished nation will capitalize on the tense situation by smuggling fighters across the long and difficult-to-control Yemeni-Saudi border.

[..]The latest violence in Yemen, the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden, threatens to further undermine Yemen’s weak government, which is also facing secessionists in the south, Al-Qaeda militants, poverty and pirate-infested seas.

More at The Daily Star - Politics - Shiite rebellion in Yemen raises concerns in Saudi Arabia.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Yemen lays out truce terms to rebel fighters (cnn.com)


• Yemen 'arrests senior al-Qaeda man' (news.bbc.co.uk)


• Official: One son of Osama bin Laden likely dead (cnn.com)

US 'biggest' threat say Pakistanis

Image via Wikipedia

A survey commissioned by Al Jazeera in Pakistan has revealed a widespread disenchantment with the United States for interfering with what most people consider internal Pakistani affairs.

The polling was conducted by Gallup Pakistan - a separate organisation affiliated with the US-based Gallup Inc - and more than 2,600 people took part.

Interviews were conducted across the political spectrum in all four of the country's provinces, and represented men and women of every economic and ethnic background.

When respondents were asked what they consider to be the biggest threat to the nation of Pakistan, 11 per cent of the population identified the Taliban fighters, who have been blamed for scores of deadly bomb attacks across the country in recent years.

Another 18 per cent said that they believe that the greatest threat came from neighbouring India, which has fought three wars with Pakistan since partition in 1947.

But an overwhelming number, 59 per cent of respondents, said the greatest threat to Pakistan right now is, in fact, the US, a donor of considerable amounts of military and development aid.

The resentment was made clearer when residents were asked about the Pakistan's military efforts to tackle the Taliban.

Keeping with recent trends a growing number of people, now 41 per cent, supported the campaign.

About 24 per cent of people remained opposed, while another 22 per cent of Pakistanis remained neutral on the question.

A recent offensive against Taliban fighters in the Swat, Lower Dir and Buner districts of North West Frontier Province killed at least 1,400 fighters, according to the military, but also devastated the area and forced two million to leave their homes.

The military has declared the operation a success, however, some analysts have suggested that many Taliban fighters simply slipped away to other areas, surviving to fight another day.

When people were asked if they would support government-sanctioned dialogue with Taliban fighters if it were a viable option the numbers change significantly.

Although the same 41 per cent said they would still support the military offensive, the number of those supporting dialogue leaps up to 43 per cent.

So clearly, Pakistanis are, right now, fairly evenly split on how to deal with the Taliban threat.

However, when asked if they support or oppose the US military's drone attacks against what Washington claims are Taliban and al-Qaeda targets, only nine per cent of respondents reacted favourably.

A massive 67 per cent say they oppose US military operations on Pakistani soil.

via Al Jazeera English - CENTRAL/S. ASIA - US 'biggest' threat say Pakistanis.

War has no winners. There is such a thing as a just war. A war of annihilation must be fought, for not defending one's survival is unthinkable. Then, it is also necessary to contain the bullies of the world. But war should always be a last resort.

Stateless entities who foment war across a international boundaries seem to challenge conventional values about war. The piece that people seem to miss is that insurgencies require local support to survive. While the Taliban are seen as the aggressors, the ruthless terrorists they are, then the Pakistanis have wholeheartedly supported their suppression. But when civilians are killed, made homeless and their lives are disrupted, then entity seen as the aggressor lose the hearts and minds of the local people.

In Pakistan, their armies conventional approach to suppressing the 4000 Taliban led to creating 2 million refugees. The Pakistani government successfully deflected the blame onto the US. Thus, the US again has placed itself in a lose-lose situation. To win the war in Afghanistan, they need to deny the Taliban refuge in Pakistan. But to do that, they force the Pakistanis into a civil war, a war that will last generations if continued.

The US cannot possibly win the war in Afghanistan. The only solution is a fundamental change in US policy. John Kerry's 2004 campaign white paper for foreign policy appears to be the best hope for success.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Pakistani and U.S. Officials Seek to Confirm Death of Taliban Leader (nytimes.com)
• "Creeping Talibanization" in Pakistan (kristof.blogs.nytimes.com)
• NYT: Pakistan's porous border could hinder U.S. (msnbc.msn.com)
• Where the Mullahs Are the Upper Crust (nytimes.com)
• Pakistan and US 'at odds' over Taliban threat (telegraph.co.uk)
• Pakistan Arrests Cleric Behind Deal With Taliban (nytimes.com)
• Has the End Come for Bhutto's Killer? (time.com)
• 'Godfather' of Swat Taliban arrested (guardian.co.uk)
• Mehsud killing seen as major blow to Taliban: analysts (nationalpost.com)