July 8th, 2008 by BRIJ KHINDARIA, International Columnist
It is wishful thinking for Americans of any political hue to expect that Barack Obama or John McCain will be able to fight terrorism quite differently from George Bush, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere.
His shoot-from-the-hip policies have created long term cages that make it almost impossible for the US to change course regardless of hope-filled audacity. The fact is that post-Bush terrorism has no purely military or non-military solution.
Victory will come, if ever, from the right mix of both but nobody knows how to blend the brew and how long that might take. There are no historical precedents or points of reference around which to build exit strategies or solutions.
Short of ordering a rapid retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan, like from Vietnam, there is little prospect of disengagement without ceding large territories to those who hate America.
The continuing presence of US and allied troops foments more hate but leaving will intensify medium and long-term danger from terrorism. The menace of terrorism is clear and present and affects most of the world’s people; yet no foreign government is siding whole-heartedly with US-led military solutions.
This is partly because of fear and partly because of distrust in US competence and leadership. Everybody follows a winner but the US performance so far seems to be leading to failure. So its friends are discreetly abandoning ship.
This is already clear. Even at the height of the Iraq war, British troops made up less than 10% of the US presence. Other coalition members brought in token troops but continue to demand large political and financial favors in return. In Afghanistan, Washington’s closest NATO allies are very reluctant participants although Americans are taking the lion’s share of deaths and casualties.
Before political quarrels among Americans worsen in the run up to November, it is best to call a spade a spade. Regardless of political affiliation or anger against Bush, it is worth noting that the cages built during the past six years are so robust that they could get the best of any Houdini.
This is not an exaggeration. Terrorists and their sympathizers, who used to be holed up in backward Afghanistan, have entered vast swathes of territory in less than four years. Their most sinister gains are in Pakistan and Algeria.
In Pakistan, both the Taliban and al Qaeda are disliked foreigners in normal times. But they have gained so many local sympathizers that they are gradually taking control of the North Western provinces and Baluchistan. Those rugged territories are inhabited by such obscurantist tribal people that locating and killing terrorists hiding among them is next to impossible.
Only two paths remain to neutralize terrorists. One is to start winning the military war in Iraq and Afghanistan so clearly that allies return to Washington’s side to help wherever needed. That would boost the diplomatic and political tracks of installing and sustaining peace for reconstruction.
The other way to neutralize terrorists enjoying safe haven in Pakistan and elsewhere would be to turn the local people against them. That requires economic development, education and similar activities to create significant prosperity. This is a distant dream not least because the terrorists know it and have no compunctions about killing innocents to prevent stability through bomb blasts, kidnapping and extortion.
Bush is not entirely at fault. Extremists may have gained influence even in the absence of the US invasions simply because of backwardness, tribalism, ignorance and poverty. The difference is that the problem would have been for local governments to solve.
Instead, Bush’s policies have given the American people ownership of intractable situations born of medieval thought patterns light years away from them. The US is now the egg between the hammer of zealots fighting to destroy the anvil of local governments.
US involvement is a boon for both local governments and terrorists. Governments can become rich with money from American tax payers while escaping their people’s wrath by blaming US “militarism”. Terrorists gain local support by saying they are the only ones capable of purging the region of infidel US influence.
The situation is similar in Algeria, where the terrorists have reconstituted themselves as al Qaeda in the Maghreb. After over 20 years of fighting, government forces were starting to corner Islamic terrorists. In an act of despair, they contacted al Qaeda in Pakistan and received sufficient arms and training to stem defeat.
Something similar happened in Iraq’s Sunni triangle with the creation of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Currently indigenous tribal leaders are resisting al Qaeda’s foreign elements but are no less opposed to US presence in their region.
This kind of hybrid al Qaeda presence is spreading to Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia, and may also have arrived in Nigeria. It is characterized by local fighters who tie up with Pakistan-based al Qaeda to gain training and weapons. In exchange they tack on to their parochial agendas, the al Qaeda requirements of adopting its name and attacking local symbols of American and allied presence.
Now that this cancer has spread so far, it is unrealistic to expect that Bush’s successor will be able to excise it quickly or cleanly whatever he might promise to get your vote.
An East Jerusalem Palestinian hijacked a bulldozer today and began attacking buses, cars and the people in them. A few people were killed and around 60 were wounded. Fortunately, the terrorist was quickly killed.
While BBC Online currently covers the story “Bulldozer rampage hits Jerusalem,” this was not the original headline. Offering a glimpse into the BBC’s warped journalism, the initial headline read “Israel bulldozer driver shot dead”.
I am appalled to see that CNN is writing “terrorist” and MSNBC is writing ‘terrorist’ when these are TERRORISTS without quotation marks or apostrophes.
Credit for some of these links goes to Rabbi David in Iowa.
“If for political and tactical reasons, the American administration won’t announce the terms of the Convention; if some of the terms of the deal adversely affect Iraqi “sovereignty and dignity”; and if as Nouri al-Maliki has said, talks are at a standstill, then why doesn’t the Iraqi government or it’s representatives at the talks reveal to the Iraqi people the items that they say so detrimentally affect Iraqi sovereignty and dignity, to help win popular support for the government’s position so that all can understand how the government defines its “sovereignty and dignity”? … Do we truly live in the era of transparency and democracy, as our esteemed government leaders, members of Parliament and party leaders claim? Or is this only talk - the sowing of seeds of illusion within the minds of this pitiful people, whose field of dreams is desolate and barren, and for whom the hoped-for heaven is instead a living hell?”
“Someone should explain the meaning of the absolute secrecy that has surrounded the draft Convention - and the meaning of the non-disclosure of the names of those on the negotiating team … Are negotiators afraid to shoulder the blame, or are they concerned they can’t stand up to the Arabic or Iranian backlash? The legs of the negotiators tremble when it comes to accepting responsibility for their actions.”
“… not only to repel the conflicting ambitions of Arabs, Turks and Iranians, but also to prevent a civil war, the flame of which has yet to be extinguished. For there are thousands who continue to blow on the embers - embers that are mainly due to the presence of political Islam at the head of the state and the spread of sectarian thinking in politics, culture and different types of Arab media.”
“That attitude of some parties, politicians and religious authorities are just an echo of the sectarian forces outside of Iraq, that don’t care about Iraq nor the people of Iraq, except to the extent that it’s in harmony with their wasteful, selfish interests. Hence we can understand why so many are opposed to the Iraqi-American agreement, because their opposition isn’t based on the national interest. Rather, they oppose it on the basis of sectarian motivations, decided by people outside of Iraq.”
This is a Guest Voice post by journalism professor and author Walter Brasch who is also a syndicated newspaper columnist and radio commentator, and president of the Pennsylvania Press Club. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.
Pennsylvania Politics: Resolved to Continue Bigotry
by Walter Brasch
There should have been absolutely no controversy in a resolution presented in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives this past week.
Speaker Dennis O’Brien, a Republican from Philadelphia, wanted to honor the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which was holding its 60th annual national convention in Harrisburg. These resolutions are routine and almost always noncontroversial. The resolution pointed out that the organization’s purpose was to “increase faith and harmony and introduce various humanitarian, social and religious services.”
But that wasn’t what angered Rep. Daryl Metcalf, a five term Republican from north of Pittsburgh.
“The Muslims do not recognize Jesus Christ as God,” he declared indignantly, and said he would vote against the resolution.
Now, normally, Rep. Metcalf’s views would be heard—and dismissed as a bigoted attack. But this is Pennsylvania politics. So, Rep. Gordon Denlinger, a Republican from Lancaster, felt he had to talk. “Certainly this nation went through an attack some years ago that is well-burned into the subconscious of our society,” he said, and then emphasized, “What I sense on our floor today is that, for some people, this evokes very strong passion and emotion.” Apparently, Denlinger never considered that all religions, including Christianity, have violent extremists. Nevertheless, on Denlinger’s suggestion, the full House sent the resolution to committee, where it would ultimately die long after the weekend convention.
The nonsense in the House isn’t isolated.
Voluminous lies and exaggerations about Sen. Barack Obama permeate the conservative talk shows, e-mails, and Internet. From bitterness dripping in an equal amount of invective and stupidity, we are told that Obama is a radical Muslim “mole” who is waiting to take over America, that he attended Muslim schools and was indoctrinated in that faith, that he switched to Christianity solely to get elected to office, and that he took his oath of office by placing his hand on a Koran.
“As expected, the demagogues have begun shouting hostile ideological slogans without taking a moment to consider the advantages that the United States offers a devastated country like Iraq. Read the rest of this entry »
When and if Barack Obama takes the oath of office as President of the United States, who most will he owe that high privilege to?
According to Alexandre Adler, one of France’s leading historians, journalists - and according to many - a neocon, that person would be George W. Bush. Read the rest of this entry »
“The McCain-Obama face-off is already turning the November presidential election into an exceptional moment in American history. A Republican rebel in his seventies confronting a mixed-raced newcomer to national politics almost looks like an accidental hiccup. It is a sign that the political apparatus no longer knows how to respond to the nation’s challenges. Both candidates embody the quest for what historian Arthur Schlesinger once called ‘the vital center.’
Now that the pro-Western government in Lebanon has been “put in its place” by Hezbollah - and by extension Iran and Syria - what is Israel up against - and what narrative will the Islamists use to heal the wounds and consolidate their victory?
Explaining why Lebanon’s Pro-West Sunni government is afraid of Hezbullah and Iran, Zaatera writes:
“The people of the Umma [the Muslim Nation] and in particular the Sunnis, are as captive as they are perplexed. On the one hand, they know that what’s happening in Lebanon is an integral part of the battle that the Americans and Israelis are waging against forces of resistance and opposition in the region. Read the rest of this entry »
There is angst on North Africa - otherwise known as the Maghreb - over the second-class treatment meted out to the region by the Bush Administration.
And since this is where the Pentagon intends to headquarter its new African Command - and since it hosts a blossoming al-Qaeda presence - this is not an inconsequential matter.
In the latest in a series of articles WORLDMEETS.US has translated that one might call “we can’t get no repect,” Read the rest of this entry »
Could the Northern Alliance - America’s allies who helped bring down the Taliban Government in 2001 and bring Hamid Karzai to power - be behind the brazen attempt on his life during a military parade last week?
“Who was behind the April 27 attempt on the life of the President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, and what did they have to gain? Read the rest of this entry »
What’s poses the greatest danger to NATO’s effort in Afghanistan? According to Dutch Scholar Gunnar Heinsohn, the answer is clear: Afghanistan’s birth rate.
“In 2008, there are 4.5 million male Afghans within the traditional warrior age of 15 to 29 years. Out of that group come the insurgents that the approximately 35,000 NATO soldiers are now dug in to confront … and behind Read the rest of this entry »
“Bush sees the world in terms of good and evil, and he considers that only a united front encompassing all 2.2 billion Judeo-Christians will be able to resist Islam. Recent decades have seen increasing religious tension and the spread of theocracies, which now encompass almost all Arab countries.” Read the rest of this entry »
Now it’s Condoleezza Rice’s turn to take a hand in putting up the false front the Bush Administration is trying to construct and pass off as “victory.” She follows President Bush last September, Vice President Cheney and the war’s heir apparent, John McCain, last month in projecting a perception of peace with smoke and mirrors.
In a surprise trip last weekend, the Secretary of State was cheerleading “a coalescing of a center in Iraqi politics in which the Sunni leadership, the Kurdish leadership, and elements of the Shiite leadership that are not associated with these special groups have been working together better than at any time before.”
The “special groups” are militias of the Mahdi Army. If the central government continues to attack them, as it did ineptly in Basra this month only to be bailed out by US forces, al-Sadr is threatening “all-out war.”
While Rice hailed the coalescing, there were three rocket attacks–the first as she was meeting with Maliki at his office, another while returning to the Green Zone from a meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talibani, a third that delayed a ceremony at which she unveiled a plaque commemorating civilian deaths in the Green Zone.
Credulous, likely-senile Jimmy Carter had tea with the terrorist group Hamas and now, according to MSNBC, Hamas is asking for a 10-year “truce” while refusing to recognize the State of Israel on the condition that said State of Israel return to the nearly-indefensible 1967 (read 1949) borders.
This is nothing new from Hamas, which would love to import offensive weaponry for the next 10 years while ruling both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Hamas’ terrorist attacks will simply be farmed out to (or conveniently blamed upon) Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Al-Aksa Martyrs’ Brigades etc…while Hamas claims to be at peace and that Israeli self-defense violates this ‘hudna’ (an Islamic temporary truce until victory can be attained over an unwary enemy).
Hamas had its chance to give up violence and become a constructive political organization when it won that so-called election. Hamas could have suppressed violence and dismantled the other terrorist groups (see above list) while working with Israel and the world community to ease the plight of its subjects. Did Hamas choose to grow up? No way! Hamas chose to blow its big chance and continue to bring misery to the Palestinian Arabs.
Only an ignorant, politically-correct, self-righteous moralizing fool would buy-into this nonsense.
From everything we can gather so far, there are few fans of a John McCain presidency in the Russian press - and the same can be said of President Bush. Asking what’s wrong with Bush’s Iraq strategy is the same as asking what the danger of a John McCain Administration would be. Galina Zeveleva of Russia’s Novosti News Service writes, “Bush continues to rely on force, thereby multiplying the army of terrorists more quickly than he can suppress them, while strengthening the conviction in Iran that possession of nuclear weapons is the only guarantee of its security.” Read the rest of this entry »
As the grim milestones in Iraq pile up, Americans aren’t the only ones wondering how long the war will go on. Jean-Claude Kiefer writes for France’s Dernieres Nouvelles d’Alsace, ‘the United States has been discredited; Islamist terrorism is expanding; there is extreme tension throughout the Middle East; the Israeli-Palestinian crisis with Hamas has radicalized Gaza; Iran has been declared a regional power and may soon go nuclear; the regimes of the pro-Western Arab states are shaky; and the major routes of oil - which is already very expensive - are threatened … And this is not an exhaustive list!’
By Jean-Claude Kiefer
Translated By Philippe Guittard
March 23, 2008
France - Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace - Home Page (French)
Tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, millions of refugees, nearly 4,000 American soldiers killed in daily attacks, a country devastated … And, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, a bill of direct and indirect costs of $3 trillion which was paid for on credit, and which has greatly contributed to the decline in the dollar! And yet to draw up a complete accounting of five years of war in Iraq is impossible. Read the rest of this entry »
What can be gleaned from the fact that on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, President George W. Bush and his ‘alter ego’ Osama bin Laden both gave speeches? Patrik Etschmayer writes for Switzerland’s Nachrichten, ‘Bush once again showed how brilliant he is at ignoring the reality of his own mistakes and giving the truth a whole new twist … This speech - which was an absolute denial of reality and self-deception - was not out there on its own for long, but was soon accompanied by one from his alter-ego on the Dark Side, when Osama bin Laden reportedly spoke again … Bin Laden’s message carries more than just a warning for Europe. It also shows that even for bin Laden, Bush is a man whose time has run out. … Both are voices from the crypt - but it seems that it will be bin Laden’s voice that will be heard the longest.’
By Patrik Etschmayer
Translated By Patrik Etschmayer
March 20, 2008
Switzerland - Nachrichten - Home Page (German)
It’s the fifth anniversary of the starting shot of the second Iraq War, and right on cue, two of the undead have chosen to speak. First, George W. Bush gave his speech on the anniversary of this enterprise; and from the other, reports are that Osama Bin Laden too has spoken once again.
Bush went first, however, and once again showed how impressive and brilliant he is at ignoring the reality of his own mistakes and giving the truth a whole new twist.
A wonderful example for his mental somersaults can be found early in the speech, when Bush says the following about the defeated Iraqi army and regime: “When the Iraqi regime was removed, it did not lay down its arms and surrender. Instead, former regime elements took off their uniforms and faded into the countryside to fight the emergence of a free Iraq.”
What he didn’t say was that the army and security forces had in fact surrendered, and then were released by the Americans - with the effect that in the aftermath, hundreds of thousands of unemployed soldiers and police - still armed - were ready to organize resistance to the occupiers.
Of the fact that the U.S. Army also failed to secure huge caches of Iraqi army weapons, which were then cleared out by insurgents in the tremendous power vacuum that existed at the time … not a word was mentioned.
Nor was any mention made of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction (the alleged existence of which was the main reason for the war), the fact that al-Qaeda only appeared in Iraq after the invasion, and that for four years the U.S. administration ignored every voice that criticized its actions in Iraq - and in the case of the generals that dared to speak up - it silenced them.
The perhaps too-late U-turn in Iraq, which in recent times has at least brought a degree of calm, was mentioned this way: “So we reviewed the strategy - and changed course in Iraq.” Four botched-up years of ineptitude rolled up into one sentence, which makes it sound as if some real achievement has been accomplished.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the Iraq War anniversary.
Is the Bush Administration hoping for or perhaps even egging Israel on - to invade the Gaza strip and destroy Hamas’ power base there? Political Commentator Maria Appakova writes for Russia’s Novosti, ‘Sixty four percent of Israelis consider it necessary to hold a dialogue with Hamas to obtain a truce. But this is hardly in the interests of the United States. Nor is a truce likely to lead to peace. … Thus, just one option remains - the destruction of Hamas power in Gaza.’
By Maria Appakova
Translated By Igor Medvedev
March 5, 2008
Russia - Novosti - Original Article (Russian)
MOSCOW: U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have simultaneously announced that they continue to believe in the possibility of establishing peace in the Middle East by the end of 2008.
These statements were made the day after Israel concluded ground operations in the Gaza Strip which resulted in the deaths of over 120 Palestinians. What price will Palestinians and Israelis have to pay before Washington realizes that its hopes have been dashed?
Bush’s words of hope, expressed during a press conference in Washington on the results of talks with King Abdullah II of Jordan, could perhaps have been dismissed as diplomatic politesse. But Rice was at that very moment visiting the Middle East and could see for herself what was going on in the region. In parallel with her meetings in Israel, rockets continued to fall; and the Israelis continued surgical strikes in Gaza on the eve of withdrawing its troops.
So what is the source of such faith that peace can be established in the next 10 months - and at a time when it seems that all international efforts to return the two sides to the negotiating table, especially those of the United States, have failed?
Yes, of course Israeli and Palestinian leaders maintain that peace remains their strategic objective, but statements on the resumption of talks have been sluggish. On the contrary, Israel is actively discussing new full-scale operations in the Gaza strip. For his part, President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, announced on the eve of Rice’s visit on Sunday that he was freezing negotiations with Israel, which were launched late last year in Annapolis under the patronage of the United States.
Recall that meetings between Israeli and Palestinian delegations resumed over the past few months, including those headed by Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the parameters of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. Before that, there had been no talks on a peace agreement since the fall of 2000. They were at best not about peace, but about a truce and a ceasefire. Now the situation has returned to what it was over seven years ago.
Although the Iranian President was welcomed with great fanfare by Iraqi leaders a few days ago, Iranian intelligence officials are singing another tune. According to this news account from Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper, Iraq’s Intelligence chief Muhamad Abdullah Al-Shahwani has criticized the Iranian intelligence services for seeking to, ‘abort the experiment with the Awakening Councils,’ a collection of mostly Sunni groups that U.S. forces are backing to fight al-Qeada. Hinting at the root of the problem, Al-Shahwani said, ‘a number of senior Iraqi officials refuse to recognize the Awakening Councils and the positive role they have played in bringing new hope.’
By Karim Abd Zair in Baghdad and Nadal Al-Laithy in London
Translated By James Jacobson and Nicolas Dagher
February 28, 2008
Iraq - Azzaman - Original Article (Arabic)
The head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, Muhamad Abdullah Al-Shahwani , yesterday criticized the Iranian intelligence services for seeking to, “abort the experiment with the Awakening Councils,” which are battling elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq. For his part, an advisor to the Awakening Councils, Tamir Al-Tamimi, told Azzaman,” the Awakening Councils have been targeted by the Iranians, either directly or indirectly, through terrorist organizations that cooperate with Iran, such as al-Qaeda. Read the rest of this entry »
This is just one of the allegations in Roger Faligot’s book, The Chinese Secret Services: From Mao to the Olympic Games. This specialist in intelligence retraces the history of the ties between the Middle Kingdom and al-Qaeda. According to this review of the book from Le Matin of Switzerland, the author writes, ‘The first negotiations with Osama bin Laden’s entourage are alleged to have been held in 2006 in Pakistan’s Baluchistan Province … What has China promised to prevent a suicide bomber from blowing himself up during the finals for the 100-meter dash? And most importantly, what confidence can we give any commitment undertaken by Osama bin Laden? The answer will come next August in Beijing.’
By Ian Hamel
Translated By James Jacobson
February 23, 2008
Switzerland - Le Matin - Original Article (French)
Tomorrow, the word “Guoanbu ” will be as familiar as CIA, KGB or General Intelligence . China has not only become a great world power, it has also erected the most important secret services in the world. They comprise two million spies who scrutinize your acts and gestures, especially if you’re an athlete, a sports journalist or an opponent of the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing. For the latter, China has also established a center for special intelligence equipped with a budget of $1.3 billion.
Security has become a national priority in the Middle Kingdom, which dreads nothing more than dramas like the one that occurred in Tiananmen Square in 1989 ; demonstrations by Beijing’s Uyghur opponents (a Muslim minority from West China ); or protests by the Tibetans, during the global festival of sport next August. In The Chinese Secret Services. from Mao to the Olympic Games, China expert Roger Faligot reveals that General Chen Xiaogong, the new coordinator of military intelligence, negotiated with al-Qaeda to prevent terrorist attacks during the Olympics.
MAO’S GRANDSON
There relationship between China and the Islamist movement are long-standing. At the end of 1979 beginning with the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, the Chinese decided to help the Mujahideen. Beijing provided Simonov sub-machine guns and Kalashnikov assault rifles, which have the advantage of using the same ammunition as Russian weapons. Within the Chinese Embassy in Islamabad, there is a military attaché named Kong Jining. This commander, who supplied the Islamists with weapons of war, was none other than Mao Zedong’s grandson.
“The choice of such an agent shows the importance that the Chinese placed on operations in Afghanistan. These good relations have continued with the Taliban. At the end of 2001 …
![[NZZ am Sonntag, Switzerland]](http://worldmeets.us/images/bushpope_nzzamsonntag.gif)
![[Guardian Unlimited, U.K.]](http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2008/03/04/bell512.jpg)
![The Telegraph, U.K.]](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00296/Peter_Brookes_296162a.jpg)
