In your Washington Post editorial of September 30th, you observe “Democracy always favors dialogue over confrontation”, a wise and useful sentiment. Though you observe the terrorists have gained the most from the recent “verbal assaults some in the USA have made against Pakistan”, the present unhappiness of the Pakistani / American relationship requires some measure of frankness and yes, confrontation. Problems will never be solved without a clear exposition and a route to solution.
Pakistan has not behaved like an ally and cannot be one at present time. It is a nation at continuous war with itself and its neighbours and has been through its short and sad history. The disgraceful line of battle on your border with India can be seen from space. Your first order of business ought to be to extend your writ to every hectare of your own country. This you have not done. Pakistan has shabbily treated its many tribes. Corruption is endemic. Democracy depends on an educated population: Pakistan cannot rise in the world while its children do not go to school. You speak of a contest between the incendiary politics of extremism and the slow burn of democracy: the ancient dividing wall standing between the people of privilege and the poor has not been broken down. While it stands, your country remains in terrible danger.
An army without an enemy will promptly invent one to justify its own existence. Pakistan’s military and intelligence services have often served as a government in the absence of meaningful civilian leadership. The military, like money itself, is a wonderful servant but a terrible master: Pakistan’s civilian leadership must first come to terms with its failure to clean up corruption before the military will respect it. Any dispassionate observer of Pakistan will note its strong sense of patriotism: all leadership is by example and there is no substitute. Provide that good example.
Do not attempt to subtly threaten the USA with an insistence on your necessity in the war on terror, or feebly beg off your obligations for lack of resources, for this is how I interpret much of this message. You are not necessary, not even to your own people and least of all to your own military or intelligence services. You are merely tolerated. You observe your nation has suffered from terrorism and bombings but never once do you accept the notion that Pakistan’s government has become disconnected from its own people by its own corruption and malfeasance and is now considered an enemy by many of its own nominal citizens. You have done little with the billions in aid you have already been given, money we have borrowed from others. It is true you fight an ideology that feeds on brutality and coercion: that ideology has feasted on the brutality meted out first by Pakistani officials upon the Pakistani people.
As for the heroin, it all traverses the Port of Karachi. The opium might be grown in Afghanistan but it is your corrupt port officials who grow rich on the transshipment. Friend, sweep your own doorstep ere you wag your finger at the United States and what it tolerates in Afghanistan. Our business in Afghanistan is first building a nation. You have an already-built one. Govern it, if you can.
All else is predicated on this grim dictum: Pakistan will either govern itself or it will not. The USA cannot do business with a nation incapable of managing its own affairs. We in American cannot and will not tell you how to govern, but govern you must. It will begin with the consent of your own people, not America’s consent or aid or further meddling. But you cannot reasonably expect the USA to be your ally and friend while you lack the mandate of your own people. Gain that and all will be well with you and us.
More double game
(#267502)Zardari talks about the terrorism problem, but then harbors terrorists on his soil. There's never a bad time to speak truth to his power.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
A prayer whispered into a horse's ear
(#267543)Pakistan has not behaved like an ally
But Pakistan does behave like an ally. It gives refuge and aid to groups like Taleban and the Haqqani network. These have been allies of Pakistan for years now, since the days of the Soviet occupation, if not longer. It's the turncoat USA which is in need of lessons on how allies act.
All the heroin does not pass through Karachi. Heroin, at least the heroin trafficked by the Afghan government and Northern Alliance, is transhipped over the Panj River into Tajikistan. It doesn't go anywhere near Karachi. You should familiarize yourself with the FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds and what she says about the connection between US congressional leaders and their connections with Turkish mafiosa.
Zardari is a criminal and would be in prison if not for the conniving of the USA. Address yourself to people like Imran Khan. He's interviewed by the BBC here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/r3arts#playepisode1
Catch it while you can. He has a refreshingly positive take on Pakistan and her people. Seems like a decent man. Don't make the mistake of placing your bets on people like Zardari. Americans have no excuse for this and should have learned this lesson many times over.
What you have here is a fool's prayer, or as the Japanese say:
馬の耳に念仏
"A prayer whispered into a horse's ear"
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
That's a good point. The US is a liberal,
(#267552)democratic nation. The alliance that happened was as a response to a specific condition - the need to get the better of the USSR.
The USSR is gone. The US does not need "allies" in that space - in the sense of aid for the purchase of military hardware and so on. Admiral Mullen made that point celarly last week. How much military hardware is sold in that region anyway?
There is a specific requirement for a test area for drone technology, probably the single greatest leap in military technology for tactical warfare since the invention of aircraft - and the requirement for obscure and unknown TPs to be used. Compare the effectiveness of precision missiles linked to drone-tech today, to the cruise missiles of the 1990s - recently demonstrated against Mr Awlaki.
Afghanistan/Pakistan etc will therefore continue until such time as the tech is perfected - precise obliteration with minimal collateral, a necessary requirement for modern warfare that needs to be conducted in the full light of media attention. Compare to the Russians media-inept handling of Georgia and Chechnya.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
The problem with drones
(#267557)The problem with drones is that there aren't enough of them. The number of people in the region who oppose foreign troops in Afghanistan or the drug trafficking into Iran or the killing of allied militant groups in Pakistan far outnumber the ability of the drone to liquidate them. At some point the US will be faced with the choice to go home or atavistically resort to mass destruction. The most heavily bombed nations on earth - Japan, Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam - were all Asian targets of America. Most Americans apparently believe to this day that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was decisive for American victory. When it is realized that drones are suited for the work of mass destruction that is called for they find a use elsewhere, like at home for the war on drugs.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Decapitation is the name of the game, Micky.
(#267560)You let the little guys fight it out until one or two get to the top of the resistance org - then whack 'em with the drone.
Its pretty effective, good bang for buck and so forth. I think you underestimate the ferocity with which the Americans are willing to prosecute the war, or any war, an underestimation perhaps shared by many here, too. They will use any technology to get mastery, or invent new technologies to get there.
NATO presence in AfPak carries little risk to the forces (relatively speaking, naturally), resource requirement is not huge and so forth.
I see the US still in the region even after 50 odd years.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Ha
(#267561)or any economic advantage, or any perceived potential future problem. I certainly don't underestimate it. The fact that it's incredibly un-American, as the term was originally defined, doesn't seem to matter anymore.
I blame it all on the Internet
The best technology in the world is meaningless
(#267649)I don't know how you judge the drone programme to be effective. The Taleban are more active, over a greater part of the country than at any time since 2001, They also enjoy increasing support from the Afghan population.
It is not simply a matter of decapitation. The previous general of NATO responsible for Afghanistan made quite a splash when interviewed by the Rolling Stone magazine when he said that for every innocent bystander killed in a drone strike, ten new militants take up arms. He realized that the drones were a self defeating strategy and was fired by Obama before the ink was dry.
The best technology in the world is meaningless when its in the hands of people who have no conception of what the mission is, or how to achieve it. It can actually hurt the American national interests. And what's more, Americans seem bizarrely determined to fail. I can't fathom it.
I knew, for example, for a long time now that Pakistan was very close to these Afghan militant groups. Seymour Hersh wrote in 2002 about the airlift of thousands of Taleban and al Qaeda militants from Afghanistan to safety in Pakistan. But if I pointed this out in discussions, pointed out the contradiction of America giving billions in weapons and nuclear technology to a nation that provides refuge and aid to an enemy, or that a substantial portion of the supplies to US and Afghan forces are siphoned off to the Taleban as "protection money", it would usually be ignored, or at most, dismissed as "conspiracy theory". As long as Americans believe they can shape events on good intentions and will power, while ignoring reality, the situation willl continue to deteriorate.
I don't think I'm underestimating the barbarous nature of war with America. I cited the top five most heavily bombed nations on earth, which is almost entirely the work of American air forces. I worry that the temptation to expand the war into Pakistan and Iran might become more pronounced. Think of the stimulus.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
The USA is not a liberal nation and never was.
(#267577)We're a profoundly conservative people, certainly the most-religious nation. It's true, in hard times, we've resorted to certain liberal nostrums but it's never been the case, especially not now, that liberal principles as set forth by John Stuart Mill and his followers were ever our preferred solution.
The USA really doesn't have allies. We've formed up some coalititions over time, but our military power far outstrips that of any of our putative allies. The rest of the world shrilly squeaks and shakes its bony finger in outrage but their hypocrisy falls on deaf ears. As in the story of the Little Red Hen, the USA has asked for help and received none. Yet when the bread is baked, lo, these fair weather friends would like a slice.
The Islamists thought we were soft: this misapprehension arose from Ronald Reagan's craven withdrawal from Lebanon and the seeming safety of various lawless and anti-American regimes. To say the Americans are using Pakistan as a firing range is mendacious nonsense: we promised to seek out and destroy those who caught us napping on 9/11 and we have been true to our word. If these areas are obscure, re-read the first sentence of this paragraph. India has meddled in Afghanistan, too: they have more "embassies" than anyone else in Afghanistan, including the Americans. I find it darkly amusing to read sentences containing phrases like "precise obliteration with minimal collateral" as applied to America's long and lonely war against terror. A friend of mine, a Pakistani journalist who now works as a stringer for the BBC, is curious why India continues to meddle in Afghanistan with impunity. It's terribly provoking to the Pakistani government.
That statement has to be incorrect. Not liberal?
(#267580)Don't you see yourselves?
Do men and women wear long, sleeved clothes? Do they cover their heads? What about the beach? Don't women wear bikinis in the USA any more?
As for social mores - is slavery not outlawed? Is a hierarchical society not frowned on? Where is the aristocracy?
A nation where the judiciary is elected democratically cannot be called "conservative".
I've just read a very interesting article by Steve Pinker - there is a diary in this.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
The US is a Constitutional Republic
(#267583)and it all depends how one defines liberal as compared to conservative.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
The core US principle: skepticism of power.
(#267590)This is why the government is structured so as to set various centers of power against one another, and require that they compromise in order to govern. The founders were extraordinarily attuned to the effects of the accumulation of power, and its corruption of institutions, having themselves thrown off the yoke of the farcically "representative" House of Commons.
To the degree they had a political philosophy, that philosophy can be summed up as "consent of the governed" and "no centralization of power." These were a profoundly un-conservative principles at the time.
M Aurelius was probably right.
actually, if you take a look at the overall construct
(#267608)the power resided with the states. the 14th amendment changed that dynamic.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
No
(#267609)the whole point of the constitution was that the articles of confederation, which did have the power residing with the states, didn't work.
I blame it all on the Internet
It Gave The Federal Government More Power
(#267612)But a great deal of the power was left with the states, and the Bill of Rights was held *not* to apply to the states (Barron v. Baltimore (1833)) until after the Civil War Amendments were passed and the courts started ruling otherwise. That's basic high school level US history.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Timmy said
(#267617)"the power resided with the states" - that's not even kindergarten level US history.
I blame it all on the Internet
It all depends on how you read the last two amendments of the
(#267627)Bill of Rights, where the power not allocated by the states to the Federal Gov't resides with the states. the 14th Amendment changed that equation.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
No, the power is balanced between the states
(#267611)and the federal government...it's a federal system, designed to prevent accumulation of power in any single institution or interest group.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Maybe before
(#267628)Once existence, or even the lack of existence, was defined to be an act of interstate commerce, any balance disappeared.
Can you name anything significant that would be constitutional if done by a state, but held unconstitutional if attempted by Congress? Not things Congress simply hasn't got around to, things they are prohibited from ever doing.
The main remnant areas of actual state authority are things that can't get 2/3 vote in Congress, but can in individual states.
Hm, well Congress couldn't prosecute you for speeding,
(#267652)not even on its own interstates. Most criminal codes, civil codes, municipal ordinances, etc. in the country are state & local matters Congress isn't allowed to intrude into. I know about how Commerce Clause legislation has outstripped all bounds, and certainly states have lost influence relative to the feds, nonetheless the simple fact is 95% of the laws we live under are state, not federal.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Not the question
(#267659)You're mixing mere delegated/residual authority with genuine balance of power. Cities and counties are allowed to regulate all kinds of stuff, but that doesn't mean they have any independent power. The state government can overrule them at any time for any reason on any subject, without any "balance" at all.
Similarly, a state has independent power only to the extent that it cannot be overruled by the Feds.
Funny that you picked the speed limit. Do you honestly think that if the Feds passed a national speed limit, the courts would call it unconstitutional? How so? They regulate damn near every aspect of cars and trucks. They regulate how many hours a trucker can drive, what papers he carries, what equipment he has to maintain, how many hours he sleeps, how much weight he can carry, how often he has to urinate in a cup. But they couldn't tell him how fast to drive. Right.
But in any case, the example fails because we did in fact have a national speed limit. Perhaps you'll claim that it wasn't really a national speed limit (despite the fact the everyone called it that), because it was enforced through threats to tax money out of the state and then not return the corresponding transportation grants and highway funds. Since there isn't any limit on how much tax money can be extracted and spent on more compliant states, there wasn't anything optional about it. The sole purpose of block grants to states is to enforce compliance, otherwise, why take the money in the first place? It's not like the states couldn't tax the money themselves.
I think if the Feds did a similar act on some amendment other than the 10th people would notice. For example, a 90% income tax surcharge at all brackets, with an optional 90% tax rebate for people who "voluntarily" refrain from having an abortion, owning a gun, or requesting a jury trial.
Interstate trucking is obviously a commerce clause interest,
(#267667)so I don't see the sense in complaining about laws designed around truck driver safety & competitive fairness. You're right that Nixon managed to bully/bribe the states into adopting a federal speed limit for couple decades there, but again you're looking at a rare occurrence and saying "the states have no power!", whereas a look at the actual body of law in each state shows that federal interference accounts for less than 5% of its legislation. I agree with you that the feds have relatively more power than they did in the past, after a century of favorable commerce clause rulings, but the fact remains that the states still control the vast majority of the law, and there is still a meaningful balance of power between the states & the US.
M Aurelius was probably right.
It all depends on your definition of liberal.
(#267582)And cetainly being liberal, doesn't preclude one from being religious.
Generally speaking, I believe the Islamists focused more on Clinton than Reagan, given Bush 41's interim actions.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
I gave my definition of Liberal: John Stuart Mill
(#267584)In practical terms, religion implies a perpetuation of established principles, ergo conservative. Reagan wimped out. That's a fact. He gave the Islamists bastards the idea we were weak.
They were always going to turn on us after
(#267589)the threat of communist takeover in their own countries was removed. We were truly allies of convenience, just as they were to us.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Reagan wimping out
(#267605)That's one way to look at it, but it's worth remembering why we went there in the first place, and how the mission statement had morphed.
We went in to supervise (protect, really) the evacuation of the PLO from Beirut. Then after the massacres, the MNF stayed on supposedly to stabilize the government and protect civilians, mostly from the Christian Phalangists. Then Shiites started shooting at us, then Druze. By that time the mission was nothing more than "shoot back at whoever shoots at us," so it was reasonable to question why we needed to be there, other than to serve as a target.
Way back in 1973 we'd given up on the idea of continuing otherwise pointless wars in order to avoid the appearance of weakness. It's not like Lebanon was going to get fixed; if the idea was to stay until peace was achieved we'd still be there now.
If shooting back was the rule of "engagement"
(#267607)that wasn't too bad, but if I remember correctly, they walked around with unloaded weapons, which was a problem.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
I remain of the same opinion.
(#267610)Here's how I remember it. Reagan got involved in the Lebanese civil war in a major way. Iran already had operators in Lebanon among the Shiites, literally within spitting distance of the Marine Corps barracks. All that explosive in the trucks was from Iran. Here was Iran's chance to give Reagan a black eye for taking sides in the Iran/Iraq War and they took it. The French were largely in the same boat.
Reagan should have beaten down Hizb'allah at that point. Withdrawing, for whatever reason, was the height of idiocy but then, Reagan really was a softhearted, soft-headed idiot, unaccustomed to following through on his promises. The intervening years show how the withdrawal from Lebanon was interpreted.
Your facts are
(#267621)indisputable, but I'd say Reagan's mistake started with getting "involved in the Lebanese civil war in a major way".
And since you brought up the Iran-Iraq war, I'd also say that supporting Saddam Hussein was not a reasonable response to the embassy-hostage situation or other Iranian misbehavior. Supporting someone like Saddam Hussein isn't a reasonable response to anything short of a threat to national survival.
Hizb'allah was weaker than they are now, but even so, beating them down would not have been trivial. The Israelis worked on it for 18 years and eventually had to give up and leave.
In any case, Reagan apparently didn't really view Iran or their clients as much of a threat - he was willing to supply them weapons for cash and hostages.
Can you refine your concept of "major way"
(#267632)I think it would be helpful.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
Major way?
(#267643)You can probably guess that my first preference would be no involvement at all. Second best, meet the agreement obligations by supervising the PLO pullout and then leave the next day.
I'd say once we had a battleship shelling the coast, troops exhanging fire with completely new Shiite and Druze opponents who weren't party to the original dispute, and US aircraft under fire by Syrian AA guns, then that could be considered a "major way".
well
(#267748)I share your first preference.
Notwithstanding, the summary of the military engagement you present, I wouldn't view it as "major" except for how it was played in the media.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
Well as I remember it
(#267630)Reagan's involvment started with saving the PLO in the camps.
It evolved with respect to "civil war" was boots on the ground with no bullets in the rifles but a battle ship in the harbor. And interesting show of power but one that was never going to be effective.
Lebanon was a minor engagement in the overall geopolitical situation, as Reagan's primary engagement still focused on the Soviets (communists).
So your call to change the object from Soviets to Iran would have accomplished what?
I do like your emphasis, that Iran was (and still is) a major player in the terrorist movement. Well done.
On the other hand, if Jimmy had done the right thing when Iran was still managable. Well?
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
I'm just a wee bit confused
(#267606)because the JSM I was introduced to very much relied on established principles, well the principles he established at the very least. Outside of the dogmas, which are few but certain, the religion I'm familar with is always testing and reviewing their teachnings as they pertain to society, although rapidity is lacking.
Upon further contemplation, almost all the "liberals" here, including yourself, are tied to establish principles. Your comment about Reagan would be a case in point.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
"Long and lonely war against terror"
(#267594)that's an interesting premise. Long? Yes, about 20 years, if we count from the first strike against the WTC. And how long have we been at it?
As for terrorism, let's all remember the pre 9/11 highjacking of Flight 814
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Airlines_Flight_814
and thereby the importance of a local context. You might call it meddling, and I have issues about what is being done under cover too, but you can hardly deny the need for a meaningful engagement with a regional player. Let me also remind the long cultural and historical links between the cultures, that go back over 4000 years of recorded history. There is a legitimacy to involvement here that might take other nations some time to achieve.
The drone strikes make little sense. My working hypothesis of a firing range may be just that, but its hard to think of any other logical and rational reason for continuing to kill large numbers of people randomly. How many of those killed were actual operatives, and whether their deaths have made a difference is debatable, at best.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
I grow increasingly irritated by the lecturing about Legitimacy.
(#267604)Afghanistan has always been viewed as a pesthole by everyone, a violent backwater nobody ever really controlled. If India wanted meaningful engagement with Afghanistan it would send more aid and fewer spies. Same goes for Pakistan. Nobody in the region is acting like a grown-up, the spiteful and stupid war which began with Partition continues to this day, a lot longer than we have been involved in that region. Both India and Pakistan have behaved horribly: there's no meaningful effort to resolve their problems.
This morning, Fareed Zakaria's television show on CNN had the Pakistani foreign minister on to deny everything. Really, I've given up on any honesty from the local players. I wish at turns we would abandon Afghanistan and let India and Pakistan blow each other to atoms with their atom bombs. Iran, too. Nations with nuclear weapons for their arsenals and children with no shoes... there is a hot spot in hell for the leaders of those nations.
No, the fundamental problem was US and Saudi support
(#267615)to the mujahid, and, much more significantly, to Zia's Pakistan in the 1979s and 1980s - when the region's players were brutalised from being mildly Islamic into the fiercely fundamentalist people we see today.
Afghanistan was a largely peaceful, patriarchical peasant society for many decades before the 1970s. The idea that is has always been some kind of pestiferous hellhole is wrong, and wrong-headed. The internal convulsions of the 1970s, the deposing of Zahir, the Socialist Republic and so forth were nothing more than the conventional struggles of modernity impinging upon a largely feudal society, something seen in every society in the world. If the USSR, the US and Saudia had stayed out of that [i]internal[/i] conflict, this would not have had the impact it has today.
As for ourselves and our neighbours, one can only reply as the Irish - [url=http://republican-news.org/archive/1999/September30/30hist.html][i]sinn fein![/i][/url] Leave us, and our conflicts to ourselves, just as we do to you. Also naturally, that will not happen (however we might wish it), as imperialism has its own internal dynamic and logic. Ideally, though? The current relationship between the West and the Indochina area.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Opinions differ on Old Afghanistan
(#267673)Going back to the end of WW1, the British found Afghanistan a perpetual aggravation and signed it over to the Barakzai. Amanullah tried to modernize the country a-la Ataturk, quite the fashionable thing to do at the time. Like Ataturk, Amanullah had to stomp down hard and repeatedly to keep his ferocious subjects in line. Nadir Shah and Zahir Shah found this modernization business hard plowing.
The problems were the same, then as now. Autocratic rule produced stability, but let up the pressure and the rebellious worms start crawling out of the container. The modernizers were never connected to the people out in the mountains: Afghanistan's troubles mostly arose from the Kabul Lefties, not the hidebound Islamist conservatives.
Truth is, Afghanistan isn't very Islamic. It's a very thin veneer and there are no big-time Islamic authorities except among the Taliban, who are widely hated. But the Taliban understand the equation of power as elucidated in the previous paragraph. They intend to be an authoritarian regime.
Afghanistan has been a problem for Pakistan and India time out of mind. There never was any peaceful era, not without a serious autocrat in the saddle of Kabul.
It is true some of the heroin comes through Tajikistan
(#267572)but the lion's share is moving through Pakistan, if this (very large) recent UNDOC report is to be believed. Skip down to page 33 or so. I was surprised to read how much heroin is moving through Iran. Nothing I say is correct in your eyes, though I research my statements carefully. Next time, prove what you say. Too much of what you're saying has no basis in fact.
The Taliban is a conflation of many groups, many of which are explicitly anti-Pakistan, especially the Mehsullah clan and the TTP. Against these, the Americans and Pakistanis find common ground and a great deal of progress has been made. Pakistan's state-sponsored terrorism comes in two flavors: Kashmir and Afghan.
The USA is not so much a turncoat as short sighted. Our presidents come and go, our government turns over with regularity. Do not expect us to take a long-term view of much. Frankly, the long-term view means nothing anymore: in the long run we will all be dead. The era of the despots is coming to an end.
I've quoted that kotowaza, uma no mimi no nembutsu a few times myself. You don't understand its meaning, obviously, or you would have never used this kotowaza. In Japan, Buddhism is a religion for the elderly and Shinto the religion of the young. As Japanese people grow older, they go to the temple and chant to the Buddha of Light, Namu Amida Butsu, Hail to the Buddha of Light, but it's all blurred together into gibberish, a meaningless phrase, "nembutsu". The Pure Land school of Buddhism believes saying this phrase will guarantee reincarnation in the Western Paradise. But it's a shortcut, a quick route out of the obligations of a lifetime of Buddhist practice and the following of the Noble Eightfold Way. Constantine's deathbed conversion comes to mind: after a lifetime of paganism, he says a magic phrase so he can go to Heaven. Chanting nembutsu into the ear of a horse: the Buddha will not hear this prayer.
You said all the heroin was
(#267650)You said all the heroin was transhipped through Karachi. This is not true. This doesn't mean that everything you say is untrue nor does it mean that I believe everything you say is untrue.
Frankly, the long-term view means nothing anymore
It means nothing to you but it is still meaningful to Asians. As long as you continue to willfully misconstrue people there and the way they look at the world, you are doomed to fail. Pakistan does have long term interests in Afghanistan.
The Buddha here is Zardari, and he will not hear your reply. He is not disposed to listen even if he did hear it. I already said that it's people like Imran Khan Americans should think of appealing to: a seemingly decent man who is not asking all that much of Americans, and shares treasured values of freedom and democracy. Zardari is just another criminal war lord.
(By the way, the phrase is blurred together for a reason. And it's not because it's recited by the elderly. Saying the phrase gains the speaker merit. Saying it twice doubles the merit. The faster one recites, the more one can say in a given amount of time and the more merit one gains. Hence the blurring. Speakers will often keep a tally using prayer beads while they pray, and wrist band can represent millions of recitations. Once the limit has been reached and the cycle is complete, a new wrist ban is obtained and the old wrist bands become objects of veneration. You see this a lot more in Tibet than in Japan.)
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Wall Street's most notorious money launderer
(#267693)I'm not satisfied with that UN report. There is something like 380 tons of heroin worth $US70 billion every year in Afghanistan. I figure it's very roughly on the same scale as world auto manufacturing. Some 10% of this goes to the Taleban who have to finance their insurgency, and let's say another 10% goes to various Afghan politicians and officials to finance patronage and lavish lifestyles.
That leaves a lot of money in need of laundering, and the subject is not even mentioned. And it's the money, after all, that the "Global Afghan Opium Trade" is all about. The heroin itself is simply a means to an end - which is money, and unlike heroin, is not burnt and consumed by those receiving it, but is stored away or passed along to other hands and kept in circulation. It should be eminently tracable for an outfit like the DEA which has had decades of "war on drug" experience under its belt.
I check in the news though and find this:
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2011/10/03/Citibank-in-Japan-faces-poss...
Japan is taking measures against Citibank, whose clients include Zardari, by the way, which according to rumours and senate testimony, is Wall Street's most notorious money launderer, but I know of no actions taken against money laundering in America. Can you set me straight here?
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Your numbers are way off
(#267694)While the eventual street value of 380 tons of heroin is in the billions, Afghan farmers make something on the order of $50 million for dry opium. And $70 billion is nowhere near the worldwide auto manufacturing total, Toyota alone has sales in the $150 billion range.
I blame it all on the Internet
I'm sure the numbers are way off
(#267698)I'm sure the numbers are way off. It was a wild guess to begin with but I'm satisfied that my estimation is within an order of magnitude. I was raised to believe that the auto industry is the industry at the centre of it all and without it, oil, rubber, plastic, glass, and steel industries would also grind to a halt.
Comparing sales of heroin vs sales of Toyota's is interesting, but as I said, money is the ultimate name of the game, so maybe it's profits we should be thinking in terms of. If we compared the profits of the heroin trade with that of the auto business, the numbers are a lot closer, and quite conceivably the heroin figures surpass those of the auto business. Maybe this is goal post moving, but really profits are the one unmovable goalpost for any business man, whether he deals in heroin or deals in wheels.
I know roughly what the Afghan farmer makes, but the point is he doesn't launder his takings on Wall Street. He will undoubtedly spend his cut at the local market on goats and whatnot. It is the larger players who need money laundering services, and they probably have never so much as seen a field of poppy flowers in the wild. (A beautiful sight by the way.)
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
I'm not satisfied
(#267721)that your numbers are within an order of magnitude. A quick google will eliminate crazy guesses.
I blame it all on the Internet
I have recently obtained a copy of "The Wretched of the Earth"
(#267751)Don't let yourself get sidetracked into idle bickering. My complaint is that the report on the Global Opium Trade makes no mention of money laundering which is a necessary final step in the flow of money. A report that goes to the trouble to inform us that 3 kgs of heroin were seized by the ISAF in Balkh Province, Afghanistan in 2009, but makes no mention of the financial industry or it's role in laundering billions in profits. They point fingers at farmers, insurgents, organized crime, corrupt officials, but there is nothing about those who play such a vital role at the final stage - those who make it possible for criminals to avoid having to haul around their money in flour sacks stuffed to overflow with small denominated banknotes. If only a quick google could help me here!
I see here yet another example of a strange determination to remain ignorant. I find it quite uncanny. I have recently obtained a copy of "The Wretched of the Earth" by Fanon, which I am now reading. Fanon was a psychiatrist who specialized on "the colonized mind". I hope I can find some answers here.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Very few here are ignorant, Micky.
(#267760)The entire AfPak region, with its history and relationships is a messy tangle with no very clear solutions.
The heroin issue is a sideshow.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
The money laundering is a problem. How do we eliminate hawala
(#267762)banking, which moves the money beyond the reach of banking regulations? There's your money "laundering": you're full of excellent sentiments and your castigation of everyone seems to be an equal-opportunity tongue-lashing. Yet I would venture to say this problem resolves to a lack of law enforcement in the area, a problem which might require a bit of what you call Colonialization and the rest of us would call Nation Building.
The drugs trade is a pretty small problem
(#267696)- on the relative scale of problems, that is. I'm sure there were/are much more significant money-laundering scams, especially in the non-democratic petro-world, Gulf states, Libya, Nigeria and so forth.
Drug affect relatively small populations, too - Colombia, parts of Mexico, AfPAk, Iran, Golden Triangle - isn't that it?
The only reason anyone is even bothered about AfPak is because of Pakistani nukes, not heroin.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
I pointed out several times
(#267700)I pointed out several times in this diary that Iran has the world's highest proportion of heroin addicts. Iran is not a small, inconsequential country by any measure, and is hardly marginal in the war, given long shared border, ethnic ties, etc. The year before the NATO invasion of Afghanistan, the Taleban has all but eradicated opium production. After they had been chased from Kabul and the Northern Alliance was back in power, opium production started to climb again, and I think has climbed steadily and is now greater than it has been ever since the dawn of time.
I pointed out also in this diary that Iran has been an enemy of the Taleban, and had been an enemy before while the Americans were still aiding Pashtun mujahadeen like the Haqqani network and Hekmatyr etc. Iran was close to actually fighting a shooting war with Afghanistan in the late 90s once the Taleban were firmly established in Kabul.
Now though, Mullen tells us that Iran is providing weapons to the Pashtun militants of Kandahar, a total reversal of long held policy. Was it due to the growth of the heroin trade and the toll it takes on Iranian society? I am guessing at least party "yes". The Iranians see the direction this war is taking and want to get it over with and have good relations with the victors.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
That old meme about the Taliban elimination of heroin
(#267701)is a bit of a myth. They did it for one year because they wanted the aid money. Farooq Sulehria observes:
What does it matter if they did it for aid money
(#267704)What does it matter if they did it for aid money? Who deserves the aid more than one of the poorest countries on earth that has just all but eradicated opium production, their number one cash crop?
I'm surprised that you haven't told me about the heroin profit laundering. Instead you are just repeating what I already know ie that the Taleban take a cut from the drugs that pass through territory they control. And we also know that they fund an insurgency against the USA backed puppet regime with this money. None of that is in dispute. It was really the higher level operators I was interested in. Sibel Edmonds names some congress persons who have close ties to the Turkish mafia, and I'm sure that Wall Street is taking its share of the profits. There are billions at stake.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/fbi-whistleblower-hastert_b_...
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Why shouldn't it matter, Micky?
(#267706)Your brief for the Taliban and their heroin policies is a myth. The rest of this post is factoids and repetition of points long since made.
The figures
(#267714)The figures on the opium (not heroin) production in Afghanistan as well as an account of the announcement on the 2000 ban on cultivation come from the same UN source that you linked to earlier when you had a point to make about Pakistan's role in the transshipment of heroin. They document a real and dramatic drop in the production of opium after the Taleban ban on cultivation. I see nothing mythical here.
As I mention, Afghanistan is probably the poorest nation on earth, and if the government bans its most lucrative cash crop (with world approval) and the farmers comply with the ban, it seems only natural to me that some aid might be in order. Perhaps to educate farmers on how to grow suitable substitution crops. If you are suggesting the Taleban government shouldn't have received aid because they only banned it to receive aid, I guess you have a point. To be truly deserving, they should have other reasons, and the money shouldn't be a factor in their decisions. I don't think that donors set such a high bar, though perhaps they should. I have never given the matter much thought, and frankly I'm not so interested.
I'm actually much more interested in the money laundering. Are the profits laundered? If there were repeated discussions on the board here on the topic I missed them. Can you point them out? I suspect that nobody has and nobody will, just as years ago when I tried to discuss Hersh's 2002 article on the Pakistani airlift of militants out of Afghanistan, and the subject will remain taboo, until, as Mullen showed recently, it is raised by a figure who can't be so easily dismissed.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Ahmed Rashid is always good.
(#267634)Here he is [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15109629]on the meltdown.[/url]
[quote]After spending the past 10 years ostensibly fighting the "war on terror" as partners of the United States, Pakistan now finds itself on a war footing with the Americans.
This follows accusations by top US officials that Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, is aiding the Afghan extremist Jalaluddin Haqqani network, which is attacking US forces in Afghanistan.
Pakistanis are now fearing some kind of unilateral US action.
It could take the shape of increased bombing by drone missiles, which have already killed thousands of people - many of them militants, but also Pakistani civilians.
The Pakistan army is now on a high state of combat alert ready to meet any threat. What on Earth happened to bring this crisis about ?
---
There is no doubt that Pakistan has suffered enormously from being a partner of the US war in Afghanistan.
The government response to the devastating floods in Sindh province has been criticised
The economy has been in a state of meltdown for months because of the violence, a lack of investment, and an energy crisis, while inflation is at an all time high. Now there is large scale capital flight as wealthy Pakistanis relocate outside the country.
Although Pakistan has received $20.5bn (£12.8bn) from the US in aid since 2001, about 70% of that has gone to the military. Spending on education and health has declined dramatically.
---
Many Pakistanis now acknowledge that there has been a national failure of both the civilian and military elite to give the country leadership. The elite lacks all sense of responsibility towards the public, refuses to pay taxes or provide adequate services to the people and is viewed as corrupt.[/quote]
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
I didn't like the article so much
(#267663)I didn't like the article so much. The Americans are unlikely to push this business too far. The war has decreasing support in public, Obama is pulling out troops and engaged in talks with the Taleban, and is distancing himself from Mullen's remarks. Clinton was also urging India to take a greater role in the region, a sure sign of waning American interest.
Meanwhile in Pakistan, I don't like his attitude. He only mentions the word "hope" once, in reference to hopes that "this government will survive until the next elections so that for the first time in its history, Pakistan can see a change of regime through democratic means." I think we can do better than that. In fact he says that Pakistanis increasingly see the government and the elite as an obstacle. Personally I see that as a source of hope, even celebration, and not something to wring my hands over. A solution to Pakistan lies in the discontent of its people carving out positve channels, and not in appeals to corrupt politicians or reliance on shopworn process. Imran Khan was saying that viewership of national affairs programming is very high and I got the impression that Pakistanis are haven't lost their interest or their optimism. The killings of the TTP are bad of course, but such groups almost always are marginal headaches, and will remain so as long as people can keep their cool.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Micky, Imran is widely known as Im the Dim
(#267669)[url=http://www.mid-day.com/news/2011/may/300511-Imran-Khan-Pakistan-Prime-Minister-Facebook-fans.htm]in South Asia[/url]. He blew his (unrealistic) chances by marrying Jemima. And not being able to hold on to her. We all appreciate the cricket and the cancer hospital, but as a politician?
Only 2% of Pakistanis go for higher ed. Its difficult to manage a modern state with stats like these. There is no doubt that interest in politics is high, and that the Pakistanis are a very talented bunch of people. But they need decent leadership. At one point last year, it seemed the judicial activists would be doing something - but it fizzled out.
See this blog.
http://www.razarumi.com/2011/09/27/no-more-escape-routes/
http://pakteahouse.net/2011/09/27/pakistan-and-the-united-states-reduced...
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Imran Khan might as well be the Man in the Moon
(#267670)he's so fundamentally disconnected from Pakistan. His support comes from overseas mostly, and nothing will gum up progress faster than a bunch of overseas do-gooders. Trust me on that, I've seen it and presume you have too. Nothing good comes down from above: meaningful politics rises from below. Khan the Saviour is nobody's salvation. He's just another worthless upper-class zamindar.
I'm not holding up Khan as a potential leader
(#267691)I'm not holding up Khan as a potential leader, just as somebody to listen to for a more optimistic take on Pakistan's future. In the end I'll take optimism and hope for the future over intelligence, education and cynicism. I think Pakistan's problem boils down to the fact that a just and decent Pakistan is incompatible with good relations with USA. Most of those you're willing to respectfully listen to (the 2%) are willing to sacrifice the former in pursuit of the latter, but maybe it's the other way round that will work better. USA is preparing to leave the scene, either way. It's a bad bet at this point and getting worse.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh