AfPakanistan – What Has Barack Obama Inherited
Filed under: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Pakistan, Terrorism, U.S. Economy
U.S. Marine under fire in Afghanistan, Spring 2008, Reuters
U.S. Marine under fire in Afghanistan, Spring 2008, Reuters
U.S. Military Surge in Afghanistan Can It Work?
U.S. Ally Pakistan – Working Next Door at Cross Purpose
If you’re at all interested in the future of the “War on Terror” and the current version of the Great Game being played out Afghanistan and Pakistan you need to read two stories from the Sunday New York Times:
What a mess.
No question about it, we didn’t finish the job in Afghanistan. We pulled personnel and resources from the fight and sent it all to Iraq. Six or seven years later, the Taliban controls swaths of territory, they use the Afghan-Pak border like a revolving door and they still terrorize those who don’t bend to their Dark Ages world view.
I’ve read that President Barack Obama is sending anywhere from 7,000 to 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in order to deal with a resurgent Taliban, drug lords and assorted other characters from Earth’s version of Tatooine’s Cantina. He might listen to former Secy of State Colin Powell:
Think Iraq was hard? Afghanistan, former Secretary of State Colin Powell argues, will be “much, much harder.”
“Iraq had a middle class,” Mr. Powell pointed out on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” a couple of hours before Mr. Obama was sworn in last Tuesday. “It was a fairly advanced country before Saddam Hussein drove it in the ground.” Afghanistan, on the other hand, “is still basically a tribal society, a lot of corruption; drugs are going to destroy that country if something isn’t done about it.”
Remember the post-Soviet era in Afghanistan? Forget about all the great powers that have had their militaries ground down in the mountain redoubts of the country, just think back to when the Soviets left.
President Obama: Day One News Roundup
- On First Day, Obama Quickly Sets Tone – New York Times
- Obama halts prosecutions at Guantanamo – New York Times
- Oath administered once again – New York Times
- Clinton approved, Holder delayed – New York Times
- Obama: New era of openness – Washington Post
- Lobbying rules tightened – Washington Post
- Guantanamo closure faces hurdles – Washington Post
- Inauguration head count: 1.8 million – Washington Post
- Obama asks Pentagon for responsible Iraq drawdown – Associated Press
Bin Laden Could Be Thinking – ‘Mission Accomplished’
The Bush Administration official in charge of reviewing practices at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp has told the Washington Post that the U.S. tortured a Saudi national.
“We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani,” said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution.
Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.
Earlier this week, an Obama transition official leaked that President-elect Barack Obama may issue an executive order to close the Guantanamo detention center. A day later, the Pentagon, oblivious to the signal sent by the Obama team trotted out numbers alleging as many as 61 former inmates at Guantanamo had “returned” to their terrorist ways.
President George W. Bush and V.P. DICK Cheney have spent the last three weeks on a farewell tour of sorts doing interviews on their eight years in office. Over the past five years, evidence has mounted that Bush Administration at the highest levels essentially sanctioned torture by CIA and military interrogators. In the face of that evidence, neither the president or vice-president have admitted mistakes in their prosecution of the war on terror. Today, a very credible member of their administration did so for them.
The Bushies are leaving office and trying their hardest to build a case for a positive legacy. What many around the world will remember is torture, black sites and renditions. In the wake of one of America’s most trying times – 9/11 – our leaders succumbed to their baser human instincts and turned their backs on the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution. They created a climate of fear rather than one of strength of purpose. They tore at the unique American fabric in ways we may not even yet realize. In some respects, Osama bin Laden must be thinking, “Mission Accomplished.”
Saucy Jack Letter Was Debunked Long Ago
Regular readers know that one of my pet peeves is chain emails, or the emails that aren’t true but purport to be someone’s heart-tugging story or tale of modern-day patriotism. Well, I got another one the other day and held on to it until I had time to look into the matter. I’m not the debunker here, I’m just trying to use the Internets to amplify the debunking.
Thanks once again to Snopes.com. You can read the original, expletive laden letter at Snopes and the full story as far as they know it behind the “Saucy Jack Letter.” This has apparently been in circulation in one form or another since November 2001. The version I received was G-Rated without the swearing.
An excerpt from Snopes’ overview of the letter:
Is the story at least believable? Not really – the narrative is rife with errors and inconsistencies: for example, Ab Gach, the panhandle, and the Hindu Kush mountains are all in the northeast portion of Afghanistan, not the northwest; scorpion antivenin is injected, not drunk; and a true “Recon Marine” wouldn’t be broadcasting specifics about his position and mission to the world at large. If this really was the work of a serviceman in Afghanistan, he was deliberately trying to be misleading or funny, not to convey an account of real events.
The “Saucy Jack” letter is as popular as it is because it purports to give insight into the day-to-day reality of a soldier in the field that CNN fails to provide. News emerging from the war in Afghanistan seems rigidly controlled, and the people back home are hungry for information that is not forthcoming. A missive such as this one thus falls on highly receptive ears.
DICK Cheney and State Sponsored Torture
Filed under: Afghanistan, Bush Foreign Policy, Terrorism
VP DICK Cheney appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation this morning. This interview wasn’t substantively different from any of the others he’s done in the past month:
Cheney also urged the Obama administration to continue the Bush administration’s interrogation policies.
“I would hope [Obama] would avoid doing what others have done in the past, which is letting the campaign rhetoric guide his judgment in this absolutely crucial area,” Cheney said. “We were very careful, we did everything by the book, and in fact we produced very significant results.”
So many problems with that statement, DICK. There are a great many smart people, including former members of the Bush Administration who warned you and David Addington about getting too carried away with agressive interrogation techniques. Chief among their concerns was something we patriots like to call the U.S. Constitution. There’s also this other little concern known as the Geneva Convention. You can argue all you want that our foes in the war on terror are not lawful combatants, but the rest of the world needs to somewhat agree, or, it looks like selective application of an international human rights treaty. And, what about the old bromide that we’re not going to stoop to their level. There’s so much more than campaign rhetoric behind the criticisms of the Bush Administration’s endorsement of torture.
