Is it not obvious to everyone that Pakistan has played the United States for a sucker? Five years after 9/11, and several billion dollars in foreign aid later, a Pakistani general states what cynical minds have long suspected: Pakistan wants our money but won't do anything to disturb Osama bin Laden's sanctuary. So long as bin Laden behaves as a "peaceful citizen," he will "not be taken into custody," explained Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan to ABC News. Who knows for whom he speaks? But the actions, or better yet the passivity, of Pakistan is consistent with his words. The fact remains that the Taliban, and al Qaeda remnants, have found a sanctuary in Pakistan. With Pakistani nukes, a powderkeg along the Indian border, and the threat of a takeover by Islamic fruit loops, a military incursion to round up the "evil doers" in Pakistan might be expecting too much. But shutting off the money spicket is a no brainer.

I agree. Shutting off the money spicket seems to be a no brainer. That is unless there is something I'm unawre of. What does seem to be clear is as long as the Taliban is able to have a sanctuary in Pakistan we will be unable to achieve a complete victory in Afghanistan. I have come to the conclusion that we are not as serious about the GWOT as we should be.

Speaking of being played for a sucker the elected Iraqi government is uncomfortably close to Iran. If Iraq becomes greater Iran, this would probably be an unmitigated disaster. Unfortunately neither major politcal party is taking the GWIT seriously enough.

Russia and China are the two greatest threats to American national security. They are also the biggest supporters of the Islamic terrorist supporting states of Iran and Syria. It appears they are using these "Islamic fruit loops" to distract the US. We need to get back to basics and have a frank discussion of who the major threats to American national security are.

The case against cutting off foreing aid is that without our, the Musharraf government would surely perish and be replaced by a Jihadi rule. Which would give Taliban types control over a nuclear arsenal.

Its not our aid that keeps him in power. Our aid just makes sure he's on our side in the operations against Al-Quadea. But it can only go so far.

The fact is that no matter how much the Pakistani government wants to root out Islamic terror, they are working against a public opnion that the war in Iraq has turned into rabidly anti-American, and pro-BinLaden.

Iraq was the stuidest, most costly error ever made in foreign policy. Vietnam doesn't even come close.

HeHe

If Iraq fails it will have been a stupid foreign policy, but it has not failed yet. That said right now it does not look good. In order to give us a reasonable chance of achieving our goals of a stable and allied Iraq we will probably need to make changes to the policy. What I would suggest is commiting enough troops to actually have a chance to secure the country. If we are not able to do this, scale back the mission to something that requires less troop commitment. Such as focusing entirely on securing Baghdad and the countries boreders. Then allow the militias to fight it out.

I think Iraq has not been a failure of policy but more a failutre of execution. Iraq may have been a misuse of resources, The terrorists, at least in what they say, seem to make very little distinction between Afghainistan or Iraq. When we removed Saddam, this cost allot of poweful people in the world allot money and the terrorists lost a valuable ally but it does us little good, if it is a net benefit to the terrorists and their Communist allies. There are allot of countries where terrorists operate but we do not invade all of them. We should only use military force where it serves the national interest. At this time, I don't think Iraq has served the national interest.

In deciding whether to reamin in Iraq we must ask if it helps us or hurts us in fighting against Islamic extremists and their Communist allies. If we can achieve a stable Iraq that is allied with the US against these enemies, this would be a tremendous benefit. For a supposedly secular country, the terrorists sure are interested in it. The bottom line is, if we are unwilling or unable to commit the proper resources to Iraq we should withdraw without delay.

We do keep him in power. If we were to pull our protecting he'd be dead in a few days.

We have achieved all of our objectives in Iraq, in fact I would argue that the Iraq War is over, and that the Iraqi Civil War is going on. It is not a failure of any policy on our part, I don't think, there was no concievable way to remove a Stalinist state from that country with the result not being civil war. They lack any common ethnicity, traditions, religion, etc, that ties them together as a people, so the only thing that actually can hold them together is the absolute power of the Iraqi state.

The policy to simultaneously serve our interests and alleviate the suffering of innocents in Iraq is to remove our occupation level force and facilitate the amicable divorce of Iraq into three countries as quickly as possible. As for ourselves, we have long completed all of the strategic objectives that we set out to. Saddam is remvoed, any thread he may have posed is certainly by now neutralized, sovereignty has been turned over to the Iraqis, we have signed a deal for the construction of 14 enduring bases, and have re-established our Middle East regional dominance.

Iran, however, will soon challenge it, already is in fact. It is possible that we will need to use our military might to re-assert our dominance against Iran. We cannot have it tied up in an unwinnable attempt to give a nation that has no common ties as a people, much less a tradition of consensual government, republicanism.

Ben

I think you are largely spot on in your ana-lysis. I neglected to include in my previous post that we will need to do a better job at public relations. Many of the lies that have been told by the enemy have either gone completely unchallenged or attempts to challenge them have been feeble. While it is true that Iraq may not have been the best use of American military resources and is probably in some way be a contributing factor to anti-Americanism, I think the fact that the enemy propaganda has largely gone unchallenged is the biggest factor.

Also, as I've pointed out previously, Stalinist states such as the former Iraqi government, Russia, and China tend to ally themselves with Islamic extremist states. I think it is based on the theory "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." In any event, policy makers will need to be aware of this, if they are not already.

The leadership of this country has demonstrated weakness for so long in so many situations that the United States and the word 'sucker' have become synonymous. Few in the World community take the U.S. seriously anymore and know that our leaders are held hostage by appearances and political correctness.

B.Poster,

I would add a third country as another of the greatest threats to American national security: Mexico. We have no idea or control over what kind of evil is streaming over our Southern border and most of our leaders could seem to care less. Couple that with the fact that the Mexican government has been pretty clear that they have no regard for the security or sovereignty of the U.S., and we have our own little war going on right in our backyard. And, as with China, we are helping to fuel the economies for people who will one day look to cripple us.

Instead of us continuing to pursue a faux search for Bin Laden abroad, we should be more concerned about the little Bin Ladens on our own soil and keeping potential ones out.

Asdf

I could not agree with you more. All of this focus on Iraq and the middle east has caused us to lose sight of Mexico. Due to this oversight on our part a close ally of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez almost gained control Mexico's presidency. Thankfully it appears that did not happen. It seems we dodged a major bullet with that one but will we be so fortunate next time around? I don't want to take that chance. You are also spot on about China.

If there's a case to be made that funding Musharraf keeps the Jihadists at bay, then a case could be made that funding Saddam Hussein should have been the American policy in Iraq to keep Iran, al-Sadr and other Islamists at bay. Of course that was our policy during the Reagan and Bush I Administrations. But the Neocons had better ideas -- like triggering a Sunni insurgency and then a civil war. Stupidity is their name.

Good point Eric.

Here's the real threat in this world:

China intervenes in Zambian election

By John Reed, Southern Africa Correspondent

Published: September 5 2006 19:19 | Last updated: September 5 2006 19:19

The Chinese government has intervened in Zambia’s upcoming presidential election in a forceful sign of the commodity-hungry country’s growing economic and political clout in Africa.

Li Baodong, China’s ambassador in Lusaka, said Beijing might cut diplomatic relations with Zambia if voters elected Michael Sata, an opposition candidate, as president, Zambian media reported on Tuesday.

ADVERTISEMENT

His remarks are the first sign of overt political interference by China in African affairs in decades, reflecting Beijing’s rapidly expanding role as an investor on the continent and as a client for long-term supplies of raw materials. China is a leading investor in Zambian copper, the country’s biggest export product by value.

China has invested billions of dollars in Africa in recent years, rivalling the US as it does so, and Chinese trade with the continent has quadrupled since the start of the decade, mainly through purchases of crude oil.

In Zambia alone Chinese companies are believed to have ploughed more than $300m into copper and other industries.

Mr Sata is challenging Levy Mwanawasa, the incumbent president, in the September 28 election. Mr Sata has been quoted calling Taiwan a “sovereign state,” angering China, and has also spoken out against Chinese labour practices in Zambia. Recognition of Taiwan would mean turning away from the country’s ties with Beijing.

Most African countries have thrown in their lot with China, leaving only a handful of governments maintaining official relations with Taiwan. Zambian media also reported that Mr Sata, currently running second to Mr Mwanawasa in opinion polls, had met Taiwanese businessmen.

The Times of Zambia on Tuesday quoted Mr Li saying Chinese investors were “scared” to come to Zambia because of Mr Sata’s “unfortunate” remarks. If Mr Sata won and established relations with Taiwan, Beijing might think of cutting its relations, the newspaper reported.

“Chinese investors in mining, construction and tourism have put on hold further investments in Zambia until the uncertainty surrounding our bilateral relations with Zambia is cleared,” the state-owned Zambia Daily Mail quoted Mr Li as saying.

In Zambia several mineworkers were shot and injured in July after a violent protest at Chinese-owned Chambishi Mining. There are conflicting reports on whether Chinese managers or Zambian police shot the workers.

CHINA!

HeHe

Interesting article about China. They are a major player in world affairs.

Eric

For better or worse the American government made the decision to invade Iraq. Given the mis stepst in the execution we may never know if it was sound policy or not. I think a democratic Iraq that was allied with the US could have been achieved with the proper troop commitment and a better understanding of the Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish factions. Neocons are but one small part of the US government. To pin all of the responsibility for the outcome of Iraq on them obscures the complexities of the situation we actually face. I'm not defending so called neocons. I'm just pointing out that it is far more complex than that.

I would say the biggest problem with the Iraq war was the resources used could have been better used elsewhere. In other words, we did not have to do it when we did it. Perhaps it could have been avoided all together.

This was followed up by intellegence failures. For various reasons, people used the wrong data. Post 911 some people may have been spooked and others probably had more nefarious ambitions. This was all exacerbated by a break down in Congressional over sight.

In the future we need to follow the Constitution. It is the duty of Congress to declare war. Congress both Republican and Democrat have failed in their duties.

"If there's a case to be made that funding Musharraf keeps the Jihadists at bay, then a case could be made that funding Saddam Hussein should have been the American policy in Iraq to keep Iran, al-Sadr and other Islamists at bay. Of course that was our policy during the Reagan and Bush I Administrations. But the Neocons had better ideas -- like triggering a Sunni insurgency and then a civil war. Stupidity is their name." -Eric

Uhm, because funding Musharraf is in our interests and funding Saddam was directly opposed to them?

Reagan and Bush I funded Saddam firstly to keep Iran from gaining regional dominance, and then because we afford to, because we had regional dominance through Saudi Arabia.

We lost that dominance in 2002 with the request that we remove our bases.

The Iraq War was necessary if we sought to preserve that dominance, and re-assert it before other power players could step in. Or maybe you think the current situation is preferable to a miniature Mideast cold war with Russia or China?

is not preferable*

Ben

I think we are already in a cold war of sorts with Russia and China. At the minimum, it seems they are using Iran, Syria, and other terrorists as proxies against us.

I think after the attacks of 911 we should have made energy independence a top priority. Then we could have lessened our prescense in the middle east. We can stlll get to work on energy independence.

So Pakistan, which provides shelter for bin Laden and other Islamic radicals, shares our interests, while Iraq, a country that fought a war with radical Islam, is not?

Saddam Hussein was a natural ally of the United States, or at least a useful tool of American policy in that part of the world. Saddam's Ba'ath Party was strongly anti-communist and anti-Islamic, making him a convenient stooge for American interests. We broke whatever good will we had with Iraq and now look what it's cost us.

Eric

We should be focusing more on Pakistan and Afghanistan rather than Iraq.

Saddam did kill some Communists in his career. So did Josef Stalin. His biggest ally was Russia. I'm not sure it is entirely accurate to say he was anti-communists. Also, he sought forge alliances with terrorists including Al Qaeda. At least this is what some reports indicate, however, the threat did not rise to the level to justify an invasion.

B. Poster, great comments and I agree totally about Afghanistan and Pakistan. Take a look at this article on that:
The Economist:

FOR the surviving optimists on Afghanistan, as it struggles to put three decades of civil war behind it, the battle that erupted in southern Panjwayi district on Saturday September 2nd contained a fragment of hope. It began when a NATO force of Canadian, British and Dutch soldiers, backed by Afghan troops, attacked Taliban militants who have used the district’s dusty villages and walled orchards as a base for attacks on Kandahar, the southern capital. As intense fighting continued for several days, killing perhaps 200 militants as well as five Canadians, the alliance proved beyond doubt that it means business in southern Afghanistan, where it took over peacemaking duties on July 31st. But so do the Taliban. In their resistance at Panjwayi, and in a series of attacks elsewhere, the extremists have shown, yet again, they are stronger and better-organised than their enemies had predicted.

The battle was the biggest operation so far by the 18,500 NATO peacemakers in Afghanistan—it was the first of brigade-size in the alliance’s history. It followed several months of heavy attacks on NATO troops and on a separate American-led counter-insurgency force in Afghanistan, especially in the four southernmost provinces. Over 2,000 people have probably been killed in recent months, including more than 100 Western soldiers. Already reinforced, the NATO peacemakers are too strong to concede ground to the Taliban, who operate partly from across the border with Pakistan. But the alliance has been unable to provide security for many long-promised development schemes in southern Afghanistan, which is the main reason for outsiders being there.

Without such development in a vast and poor area where the government of President Hamid Karzai in Kabul holds little sway, some NATO officials fear that a mostly-ambivalent local population might start actively supporting the insurgents. That would likely spell failure for the American-led effort to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists they have succoured in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. It might also signal defeat for international attempts to rebuild Afghanistan. NATO’s top civilian and military chiefs flew to Kabul on September 5th to review their mission in the country, and to ask what more resources it might need.

A lack of security and development in southern Afghanistan have encouraged the Taliban’s resurgence. Since toppling the clerical movement in 2001, America has kept few troops in the south, letting the militants regroup and terrorise foreign aid agencies into quitting the region. The Taliban have also enjoyed sanctuary in Pakistan, across whose mountainous and porous border live their fellow Pashtun tribesmen, and many co-extremists.

Another reason for their strength was illustrated by a crippling report from the UN drugs agency, released on September 2nd, which found that Afghanistan’s production of opium increased by nearly 60% this year, to a record 6,100 metric tonnes. Most of the increase was in the southern provinces, where links between the Taliban, local drug barons and corrupt officials are well established. Drugs money buys arms and recruits for the Taliban. Helmand province, where over 3,000 British NATO troops are based, saw an increase in the opium yield of over 160% this year.

This means more embarrassment for the British government, which is supposed to be leading counter-narcotics efforts. The poppy crop has increased almost every year since the Taliban were toppled. NATO troops in the south have achieved nothing in this regard. Rather than attack the drug trade themselves, they are supposed to provide security for local and other foreign agencies to do so. The Taliban, whose public information effort has shamed the alliance’s in its sophistication, have been quick to point out to anxious poppy farmers that this comes to the same thing.

What the article doesn't menation is that the number 1 reason why Afghanistan is screwed up is becuase we packed up and went to Iraq.

HeHe

The article you prsent is very interesting. I've seen many similar things. The big things that stand out are a lack of security and the poppy trade. It seems we have had pretty much the same problem from the beginning. We have not had enough troops on the ground, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. The American army simply does not seem to be large enough and our Coalition allies either can't or won't conribute more troops.

I think the number one problem is the terrorists have been able to find sanctuaries, as opposed to the fact that we went to Iraq. It may not be that simple. In any event, going forward we should contribute more resources to Afghanistan and probably to Iraq. There were terrorists in Iraq prior to the Iraq war but due to mismanagement of the war there are terrrorists now that were not there before. This will have to be dealt with.

The bottom line is the Bush administration and the United States government do not seem as serious as they should be about the GWOT. We will need a significant increase to the size and strength of the military. Even if they are not used in either Afghanistan or Iraq, chances are they will be needed somewhere. Also we will need to go back to the drawing board and ask some very basic questions, such as who our enemies are and which ones are the most dangerous. Once the enemies are identified, we can formulate more effective strategies to deal with them.

In March 2003, I don't think Iraq was urgent enough that we had to invtervene, at that time. We may had to in the future but I don't think we needed to right then.

If we were going to invade Iraq, we should have used enough force to remove the government, secure the country, secure the weapons caches, secure the borders, to search the suspected WMD sites, and to secure the economic infrastructure. Very basicly a military is best used to subdue something or to destroy something, not for nation building. Due to what appears to be severe mismanagement what began as a war of choice faces real danger of morphing into a war of necessity. People will need to be held accountable for this. I would begin by firing Donald Rumsfeld.

As I've said before, if we are unwilling to commit the necessary resources to Iraq or the GWOT, we need to withdraw from all of these areas. Right now Iraq appears to be primarily a sectarian conflict. Our national interests may be best served by scaling back our troop levels and withdrawing them to Kurdish areas.

A very basic thing we should do right away is better border control. Also, we should enforce our immigration laws. My understanding is the 911 attackers were here on expired visas. Had we simply enforced our immigration laws, the 911 attcks probably could have been prevented.

Speaking of “sucker” moves: is anybody concerned or amazed that Bush’s State Department has granted a special visa to former Iranian President and self professed Islamist radical Mohammad Khatami? He’ll be doing a speaking tour here and will be a most honored guest speaker at Harvard on the eve of 9/11.

Asdf

Yes I'm concerned. The State Department has been a very liberal institution for some time but it seems President Bush could and should intervene to stop this non sense. The Administration and the United States government are still fundamentally unserious about this. When one examines the actual policies toward Iran, they are very much about appeasment.

When the Government get serious about national security, a great place to start would be border securtiy.

Things like this boggle the mind. In his speeches, Bush talks like the tough Texan. But demonstrations of commitment and consistency fall by the wayside when real stands need to be taken on important issues. He and his administration are either stupid or weak or both. Worse yet, it shows our foes that we are not serious and organized and that we are pushovers. We need stronger and more consistent leadership and I’m not sure who will step up.

Gov. Romney appeared on O'Reilly last night, explaining how he would not supply Mohammad Khatami with any State Police protection or escorts throughout Boston and Cambridge.

This is a sad state of affairs. As usual, the liberal academia at Harvard, are completely out of touch with reality. They welcome a terror-sponsor with open arms, but rally against the ROTC and any other speaker which does not share in their hate-America point of view.

Romney's the ball$.

asdf

Well said!! This administration lacks commitment to see its tough talk through. Thank you for expressing my sentiments much better than I seem to be able to.

Fudgie D Whale

Some of these liberal academia at Harvard are probably among the "left" who hate America. What's worse is many people who think like they do probably occupy important positions within the US government. This may partially explain why we are unable to get a tough stance on anything, nevertheless, this does not excuse the Bush administration for its lack of resolve.

"So Pakistan, which provides shelter for bin Laden and other Islamic radicals, shares our interests, while Iraq, a country that fought a war with radical Islam, is not?" -Eric

Thats not what I said Eric. But is Musharraf's constant antics worse than the Taliban with nukes?

"Saddam Hussein was a natural ally of the United States, or at least a useful tool of American policy in that part of the world. Saddam's Ba'ath Party was strongly anti-communist and anti-Islamic, making him a convenient stooge for American interests. We broke whatever good will we had with Iraq and now look what it's cost us." -Eric Wilds

Preferable to the alternatives. And Saddam wore out his usefulness long ago.

As for Afghanistan, it has no strategic value other than the fact that bin Laden is hanging out in that neighborhood. So once we start to pull out of Iraq, I would advocate just busting into Waziristan, taking him, and leaving.

Ben

I would like to commit about 500,000 troops to Iraq and try to secure the country and give democracy a chance but do to political the situation this AIN'T gonna happen. Keeping in mind that additional commitments to Iraq must be done in a manner that is consistent with American national security and not in a manner that is consistent with some guy's ideology no matter how smart he may be I don't think commiting this many troops to Iraq serves our national security interests. I really don't think our security interests were served by invading Iraq, in the first place, but for this post I won't argue that.

So how soon do you think we can scale the Iraq mission back and commit more to Afghanistan and Waziristan?

Obviously we will probably need to keep some troops, in the Iraqi region probably Kurdish areas, just to make sure the place we abandon does not become a terrorist strong hold.

I would like to see less than 100,000 American troops inside Iraq by the end of this year.

I would like to see us largely gone by the end of the Bush administration. The Iraq War is over, we won. The Iraqi Civil War is raging. We no longer have a compelling strategic interest in maintaining a occupational size force inside the country.

Ben-t, you are quite right.