To all my people

I am very busy this week at work and have not had time to post. Please don't abandon me. I will be back.

Wow.

Borat is getting ambitious.

Another perspective on Buner.

Mohammed Hanif, a Pakistani and BBC correspondent for their Urdu service, had a informative article in the Wash Post Outlook section today on how and why the Taliban took over Swat and almost took over Buner.

The people (especially barber shop and music store owners, not to mention women of any profession) despise them and their conservative laws but can do nothing about it. This echoes many other reports: People hate the Taliban but do not have the resources (guns) to act.

A local man described his feelings the day the Taliban came into Buner: "I felt like a non Muslim citizen of Mecca the day it was conquered by Muhammad's army." This is a deeply telling statement, it encapsulates the hypocrisy of the Taliban movement and their corruption of Islam.

Boo Hoo Bybee; Spare me the sob stories.

I have sooooo almost canceled my Wash Post subscription in the past year.

I am going to start to keep a list of all their crap articles and opeds from now on. This is the first entry:

They ran the most idiotic apologist article on the FRONT PAGE on Friday about how Jay Bybee "feels bad" about authorizing torture.

Boo Hoo.

First of all, there are so many other important and interesting angles to this article. Like an oped from an actual participant - Ali Soufad - in the NYtimes last week. Like the countless articles and reports on what the memos said and why they said it when they did.

Second of all, the actual article reveals that he might not actually feel bad, as he may or may not have kind of sort of maybe not really sure expressed this to maybe one or two people.

So please, Wash Post, spare me the sob stories about the torture team.

Taking Back Islam.

Nicholas Kristof reported on an extremely important conference that took place last week at Notre Dame "Quran in its Historical Context".

Strict Islamic scholars have tried to remove the Qur'an over time from interpretation and meaningful discussion, 'protecting'/ prohibiting it from adapting and adjusting to the modern world. They do this because to interpret it literally justifies their own hunger for power and privilege, and also at times because they feel insecure, that Islam is under attack.

In fact, no religion's holy book should be (and is today by rational people - even religious figures) read literally. The Bible and the Torah are full of violence and contradictions. Karen Armstrong, who religion is lucky to have as a scholar, tells us that the only thing we CAN and should take away from every passage in the Bible, like from every Surah in the Qur'an, is compassion - the whole do unto others. (She spoke brilliantly about this on Bill Moyers a few weeks back.)

Dr. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, highlighted in Kristoff's article, encourages moving away from literal interpretations of the Qur'an. He correctly argues that at the core of Islam's holy book, is that lesson of compassion: social justice, human rights and women's rights.

It is up to Muslims like Dr. Abu Zayd and Fatima Mernissi (Islamic feminism) and Islamic democrats - to take back their religion through conferences and discussions as such, and books and articles, but it is up to all of us to not fall into the trap of blaming Islam for violence and oppression of women. Those conditions are not there bc of Islam, rather they have political, social and economic roots. As non-Muslims, our attacks on Islam only lead to further protectionism and insecurity which serves the purpose of corrupt, dictatorial Muslim scholars.

Here I wrote about a similar conference in Turkey last year.

Here is a truly excellent analysis of various verses of Islam's holy book entitled "Taliban's Coercion Betrays the Qur'an" by Aloysious Mowe, International Visiting Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University.

Iraqi civilian deaths.

Newly disclosed data from the AP states that 87,200 people have died violent deaths in Iraq since 2005.

The Health Ministry of Iraq provided numbers from previous years; they bring the total from the invasion and occupation to over 110,000 Iraqis killed in attacks.

Another perspective on Taliban takeover of Buner.

This article on the front page of the sunday NYTimes presents the Taliban takeover of Buner as due to the lack of Pakistani military support and presence.

In fact, Buner's local residents had fended off Taliban attacks before, but had been weakened as a result of these confrontations and needed support from the Pakistani military this round.

They didn't get it and the Taliban strolled in.

I know, we'll torture our way into Iraq.

Frank Rich has a great oped in Sunday's NYTimes on the Bush admin's torture campaign. He does a nice job of showing how and why the admin turned to torture when it did - to try to come up with a link between AQ and Iraq to bolster the sale of the Iraq war to the public.

The Senate Armed Services Committee (which includes Lindsay Graham, John McCain and torture lover Joe Lieberman) released findgins to support this claim in their report last week. Quoting Maj. Paul Burney: "A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between AQ and Iraq and we were not being successful."

It's just to much of a coincidence how the dates line up: when torture memos were written, when Zubaydah and Khalid ere tortured, when the Bush admin was int heir most intense salesman stage - ie Cheney false statements on Meet the Press. (His memorable appearance was only a month of Bybee's memo.)

Also torture was used even after traditional methods (not torture) had been effective in revealing certain details about AQ...but that wasn't enough for the admin in their struggle to use a link between AQ and Iraq to justify their already planned war on that country.

Mind Boggling Buner.

This whole Buner thing is absolutely mind boggling. (Few days baack, Buner in Taliban hands, yesterday Pakistan threatens to send forces, today Taliban makes 'tense' exit??)

If I didn't know better I'd think it was a set-up...wait, I do know better, and it does smell like a set up.

For months the Pakistan military and ISI have been accused of fake attacks on the Taliban, telling the US they carried out some massive raid and really they didn't do squat except drink tea with their fake raid victims. Dexter Filkins reported on this a while back; it's considered pretty much common knowledge.

Something is just off here: The Taliban forces, who usually could give a crap less about the Pakistani military threat and who were able to take over Swat easily (via military force and a deal with the government) then easily took over post of Buner, are suddenly magically repelled by the threat of a few Pakistani paramilitary brigades.

I mean, maybe this is a good thing, Pakistani military finally threatened to actually unleash the wrath, but I don't know, why wouldn't the Taliban fight it out? Who knows what is going on in their inner wheelings and dealings, but it's certainly not the US.

I need to read a bit more and will be back with a follow up.

Straight from the horse's mouth.

An oped in the NYTimes today from a former FBI supervisory agent about the ineffectiveness of torture and the efficacy of other methods of gaining intelligence. (And he has firsthand evidence on Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.)

The one good thing about domestic spying

is that it caught people like Rep. Jane Harman in bed with lobbyists, and AIPAC at that, a group that puts a foreign state's interests ahead of those of the US, when she should be in the sack with her constituents and the American public.

From Juan Cole:
"It is alleged that in the conversation, the spy urged Harman to intervene to stop the prosecution for espionage of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, two career lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who headed up its Middle East bureau. The Israeli agent promised to lobby Pelosi to get Harman the chairmanship of the House Intelligence committee, but appears to have gone too far in doing so."
(Apparently, also, Israeli American billionaire Haim Saban threatened to pull Pelosi's campaign donations if she did not put Harman on the Intelligence committee.)

Congressional Quarterly reported on it here first.

Juan Cole has a great synopses. You need to scroll down for posts from Wednesday. I like his suggestions that AIPAC register as an agent of a foreign state.

NYTimes wrote on it today here.

I have a feeling this Harman situation is going to get hairier and hairier...stay tuned.

It's about time.

Pakistan seems to be starting to confront reality today, sending paramilitary forces to Buner, which is only 70 miles from Islamabad and also happens to be the Taliban's new hang out. (map from NYTimes.)

Here is a great NYTimes slideshow of pics from Buner and Swat.

More violence in Iraq.

At least 75 people are killed in two suicide attacks in Baquba, Iraq.

Swat Taliban extend their rule to Buner.

Dawn (Pakistani paper) reports here that the Taliban from Swat have taken over Buner:

The militants, who had sneaked into Gokand valley of Buner on April 4, were reported to have been on a looting spree for the past five days.
They have robbed government and NGO offices of vehicles, computers, printers, generators, edible oil containers, and food and nutrition packets.

Sources said that leading political figures, businessmen, NGO officials and Khawaneen, who had played a role in setting up a Lashkar to stop the Taliban from entering Buner, had been forced to move to other areas.

The Taliban have extended their control to almost all tehsils of the district and law-enforcement personnel remained confined to police stations and camps.

Cheney is a selfish hypocrite. (Yes, most of us have known this for a while, but now it should be clear to all.)

Hasn't Cheney's main argument always been that if you release info about torture the 'terrorists' will have an advantage and therefore the US will be less safe????

And we all know Dick cares about America before anything else...right??

Curious that he now advocates declassifying ALL intelligence on torture.

Why oh why could #1 patriot do this to his beloved country? Because this will SERVE to prove HIS point, HIS vision HIS argument (HIS book...) which he values over the US.

(Cheney states the release of this info is necessary to 'prove torture worked'...I am pretty sure that the fact that Zubaydah and KSM (Khalid Sheikh Muhammad) had to be waterboarded a whopping 266 times says something wasn't working. Also, he argued against this consistently to - keep the US safe - why abandon it to prove a point?)

Here is my posting on how ineffective torture is.

Philip Zelikow (one of Condi's old advisors, who wrote a memo objecting to the torture memos while in the Bush administration, has been spekaing out about the inner dealings on torture in past days. He gave an informative interview on Rachel Maddow Tuesday night and something he said this morning on NPR stuck with me: When asked how would respond to statements that these torture methods were effective, Zelikow said its not about whether the torture was effective - its about whether it could have been acquired in other ways. Other methods - incentives, cooption - have been effective in the past and might have been effective here.

One not so shocking revelation about Bush's torture team...

No big surprise here folks; consensus was possible about the decision to torture, "largely because no one involved — not the top two C.I.A. officials who were pushing the program, not the senior aides to President George W Bush not the leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees — investigated the gruesome origins of the techniques they were approving with little debate."

No debate, dissent or historical reasoning in the Bush administration? You don't say.

Here is the NYTimes article.

On the diplomacy front...

Obama will host talks Afghan and Pakistani leaders.

Obama will host Palestinian, Egyptian and Israeli leaders in separate talks.

Open Door Policy 2009: Not like 20th Century imperialism in China; like anti-terrorism torture team, 2009.

I just have to comment on how many times I have heard this phrase on the radio "Obama leaves door open to prosecution..."

On Point tonight on Swat: Is Pakistan Ripe for Islamic Revolution. (And most importantly: Man on show clearly read my blog and stole my argument.)

On Point with Tom Ashbrook tonight was about your favorite scary topic and mine: Swat. The title, "Is Pakistan Ripe for Islamic Revolution," implies it has a bit more to do with Islam than I am willing to concede, but I am sure it will be an interesting conversation.

I don't mean to toot my own horn but I have to mention: (and at the start bc I know most of you - whoever reads this - probably only read about 5 lines of each posting) One man on the show, Marvin Weinbaum, former CIA and at Middle East Institute now, praised the same article I did last weekend on this blog from the NYTimes AND most importantly, stole my argument about revolution! I mentioned that the situation in Pakistan looked like a revolution to me last Saturday morning, I remember it well because it was the posting that interrupted by egg and bacon breakfast. Marvin, if you're reading this, stop stealing my stuff; and if you do, I'd like a little verbal footnote next time.

Anyway, here are my notes on the show:

Samina Ahmad, Head of South Asia desk at International Crisis Group in Islamabad:
-Spoke at length about Sufi Muhammad, our Red Mosque maniac
-Been unsuccessful throughout past, recently gained strength
-Definitely not gaining strength through popular will, but through fear
-Evidence: they lost all elections int he past

Didn't catch 2nd participant's full name, a Professor Hussein maybe:
-spoke about Taliban's strategy - methodical
-manipulate local animosities
-isolating local community
-ban Internet, radio, tv
-disrupt social structure and political structure
-paralyze police dept
-install new one

3rd guy - Marvin Weinbaum (name??) Middle East Institute, former intelligence analyst
- He mentions the NYTimes article I wrote on last week (for the same reasons!)
(Clearly he has been reading my blog.)
- He says article is important bc it explains how the Taliban are taking advantage of wealth inequalities
-they appeal to the dispossessed of Pakistan
-This is how it will take hold in Punjab
-Beitullah Meshud was a bus driver - not high on totem pole, look at him now, like many other revolutionaries
-this disenfranchisement is linking up with anti Americanism and anti Indian sentiment
(just like what I said last week: anti-americanism is like the anti-imperialism from past revolutions)
***Government is NOT taking this seriously
***All of these things = revolution
- He compares it to the 1979 Iranian Revolution!!! Boy oh boy. Whoaisme.

Point of contention:
Samina states there is not popular support for this extremism

The question running through my mind for the past few days has been "Where in sam hell are you Pakistani military?" I know you boys are friends with some of these guys from way back in the Soviet mujahideen days, but this is getting ridiculous.

Latest news: Taliban in Swat looking to take over Buner.

Bye Bye Byebee part deux!

Wow, looks like Judge Jay might be waving good Byebee to more than his seat on the bench!

An article today in the Wash Post states Obama is open to a probe of investigations of top officials over torture.

"President Obama today defended his opposition to prosecuting CIA employees who conducted harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects but left open the possibility that officials who approved the techniques could face legal liability."

Bye bye byebee.

I encourage everyone to sign this petition to impeach Judge Jay Bybee, a torture lover. He is one of the Bush admin's lawyers who wrote the memos 'justifying' the use of torture.

You can read his memos, and those of fellow members of his torture gang - Yoo et al, here. His is from March 13th and June 8th.

Firsthand account of ambushes and attacks in Afghanistan.

C.J. Chivers, NYTimes reporter embedded with brigade in Korangal Valley, Afghanistan, wrote two articles giving us a rare account of what is going on on the ground in a daily basis for soldiers over there. In the first, US troops ambush Taliban fighters; yesterday's follow up another of the reverse situation in which American troops found themselves under attack. The series culminates with the front page picture of the coffin of the soldier killed in attacks returning to the US.

In the Bush years, we would never see this, but now the public is more able to see the price American families pay for this war.

I guess one of the many things I don't understand about military folks that supported Bush is how they could support a commander who tried to hide their losses from the public for political reasons.

Happiest pirate I ever saw.

That's one smiling Somali pirate. I feel like this might have been an elaborate immigration plan.

Swat is a scary scary place. And we don't even know the half of it.

Scary article on Swat in the Wash Post by Pamela Constable yesterday, "Extemist Tide Rises in Pakistan."

Of course, who couldn't have predicted this, instead of being satisfied with ruling Swat, extremists are setting their sites on the rest of Pakistan.

The other most important and distressing part of the article is it gives a hint of how much horrible crap is going on there - executions of female activists and CD store owners - that we are not even hearing about.

One place we might read about these incidents is Dawn, a Pakistani paper. They also have an article on how Swat is threatening the state today.

More on the Awakening and violence in Iraq.

MERIP (Middle East Research and Information Project) put out an article "The Reawakened Spectre of Iraq Civil War" by Michael Wahid Hanna.

Thesis:
"The fate of the sahwat is but one aspect of a larger struggle over the nature of the Iraqi state and its component parts -- a struggle in which the United States is increasingly relegated to a subsidiary role. This latest phase of the intra-Iraqi wrangling that dates back almost to the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, could tip the country back into sectarian civil war and complicate Obama’s efforts to extricate the US military from Iraq."

1 boo for Obama's pick for Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy

So as not to ruin any potential possible future career with the State Dept. I am going to lightly skirt around this issue.

I was not thrilled with Obama's pick for Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy. (I am also agreeing with Marc Lynch - he has nothing against Judith McHale, as he states, but thinks Obama could have done better and has some good reasons.) I am sure Judith McHale is a great person and is clearly accomplished .(CEO of Discovery communications, major microfinancing projects in Africa, etc). But despite the past 8 years, diplomacy is actually a field, it is an art, it is a skill, it is crucial; I don't know whether her CV is perfect for this position. (Lynch laid out some great public diplomacy priorities last month.)

I know, who am I to criticize, but I am just so nervous after the Karen Hughes DEBACLE.

I know McHale isn't the Middle East North Africa (MENA) representative, but the region is probably our most important challenge and goal in terms of public diplomacy right now. I think winning over the 'hearts and minds' in the region could be relatively easy, but it will take a special person; by special I mean someone who speaks Arabic, and understands the nuances of the region - history, culture, politics, religion.

Bare with my self-centered hypocrisy briefly:

I think I could be a great face for America in the MENA region. I've found that Arabs and Muslims, in general, like me; I've always been well received in the region. Take a look at my public diplomacy work here Mr. President and Madame Secretary: (picture above, I can't get it to move down here.) When I went to visit all my friends in Morocco last summer from Peace Corps, I brought everyone Obama t-shirts. You can see one on my friend Saadia's husband Hassan.

Anyway, I will continue with my public diplomacy CV later. I have to go to dinner; because of working on this blog I have been late to every single plan I had this weekend.

J-Street challenging AIPAC.

Change really does have to come from within.

Interesting article on the year old liberal Jewish Lobby J-Street; it is now giving all the other boring ineffective alarmist hawkish necon radical Israeli lobby groups - like AIPAC - a run for their money!

"The group bills itself as the "political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement" and argues that the debate over Israel in the United States has tilted to the right despite the liberal sympathies of most Jewish Americans. J Street supports a "two-state solution" for Israel and the Palestinians and generally favors diplomacy over military force, according to its Web site and statements."

It's also different because, "In a break with common practice among U.S. Jewish groups, J Street has not been shy about aggressively criticizing Israeli leaders. This month, the group launched an unusual YouTube video accusing new Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman of running a "racist and incendiary" election campaign and alleging that many U.S. Jewish leaders are "whitewashing what Lieberman stands for."

Example of their advocacy: "While there is nothing 'right' in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing 'right' in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them..."

Of course all the other Israel lobby groups are whining that they are out of touch with Jewish sentiment, too anti Israel, etc. If they are so out of touch why are they expanding so quickly, I wonder.

Peace talks to be based on 2002 Arab Initiative

US announces concurrent peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians and Israelis and Syrians.

Most promising is that they will base the talks on the much overlooked 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Article on this in the Wash Post.

Wayne Long is the man; finally, a rational oped on Somalia.

(My smarter than I am friend Andrea and I were discussing this Sunday night over dinner - bc that's what we talk about over dinner for real - and she had reservations about this strategy. It reminded her of 'collective punishment'; for example she drew a smart parallel between this and Israeli destruction of the homes of Palestinian involved in attacks against Israelis. I kind of agree with her. But here is the post anyway.)

And from someone with experience; Wayne Long was the UN chief security officer in Somalia from 1993-2003 and negotiated the release of many hostages. I love this guy.

In the oped he discusses how his team would withhold aid from pirates clans, therefore pressuring them to give up hostages who feared the wrath of their family and tribes.

I am just going to post an excerpt from the article:

Somalia is pretty much a stateless state. Humanitarian aid and clan association are major centers of gravity. In fact, clan leaders stay in power in part by controlling the distribution of aid. Our strategy was therefore simple: United Nations assistance was withheld from the Somali clan or region by which or in which hostages were being held until those hostages were released. In every case there was a release, and in no case were hostages harmed or ransom paid. (On the downside, no pirates were brought to trial or punished in any way.)

In 1995, for example, the water supply for Mogadishu, the capital, was shut off by the United Nations humanitarian agencies until a hostage who worked for another aid organization was released. On the first day of the shutoff, the women who collected water from public distribution points yelled at the kidnappers; on the second day they stoned them; on the third day they shot at them; on the fourth day, the hostage was released.

On another occasion, in 2000, two French yachtsmen were taken by pirates in their 40-foot sloop off Somalia as they made passage from Djibouti to Zanzibar. The French Embassy in Nairobi asked the United Nations team to help, and I entered into face-to-face negotiations in the remote port of Bossaso.

After demonstrating that the hostages were alive, the pirates demanded $1 million in ransom. I responded that the United Nations would suspend all civic improvement in the region — education, animal husbandry, vaccination, water projects. The aid would resume when the hostages were released.

This drove a wedge between the pirates and their home clan, the Darod. Clan elders put pressure on the pirates. After several weeks, the Frenchmen were released to me in return for resumption of all United Nations humanitarian aid. (I was unable to negotiate the release of the yacht.)

Brit Hume couldn't waterboard if he wanted to.

Yet again, a morning ruined by unevidenced alarmist inaccuracies.

This morning on the Sunday morning talk shows Brit Hume over at Fox was wearing his ignorance on his arm, as perusual, in the debate on the govt release of torture tactics.

He claimed that the only good part of coming to terms with torture was 'feel good.' IN terms of the US domestically, I guess he doesn't understand the importance of justice. For any country to move forward beyond injustices as such, they have to come to the forefront. It's like Watergate. You have to air out the dirty laundry in order to move or people won't have faith in their government. This would be a horrible scenerio. This is why truth and reconciliation committees are used in places like South Africa post apartheid and Rwanda after the genocide.

Brit also, in his usual arrogant holier than art thou tone, completely dismissed the idea that torture was a bad idea bc it hurts the US reputation abroad. I mean, come on Brit. Winning hearts and minds is key - ask foreign policy wonks, and public diplomacy devotees, or military folks like David Kilcullen and David Patraeus. Most importantly, in the Middle East region people still love our culture (to an extent) and hate our policies. Torture taints both, and therefore takes away one of the last legs (cultural power) we have to stand on the the region - that we are a just, free, moral, ethical country. Justice, in particular, is extremely important to people of the region.

These qualities allow the US to walk the high road - they give us the advantage over terrorists and extremists like those in Swat valley. Even if you're someone that only thinks about US interests you should be against torture for this reason - not torturing allows is to execute other policies because we have the moral and legal high ground.

It was hard to choose, bu this was the MOST blatantly inaccurate statement he made: Brit claimed that there was 'unanimity' in the intelligence community that these tactics are effective. I wonder if he has talked to these guys? Or this group? Maybe this guy. Here is a list of quotes from former CIA and military officials - many in front of congress that torture doesn't work - for a variety of reasons. (We all are familiar wit these I think - that people lie or they don't say a word at all bc of their treatment- and that co-option and incentive is a stronger path.)

There are also now reports out that show the torture used against Zubaydah and gang didn't even yield any legitimate intelligence information! And that furthermore, it endangered the country because of the multiple lies they told sent intelligence community on wild goose chases, diverting their attention from real threats.

From the widely rescted ex CIA official (head of the OBL unit) and author Michael Scheuer: "I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear." (60 minutes "CIA flying suspects to Torture?" March 6, 2005)

Brit and gang's argument (and really their only argument) is that now the 'terrorists know what we will do to them'.
ONE: Umm, Brit, actually all these tactics were banded months ago. I don't know if you got the memo about how Obama administration doesn't torture.

TWO: How the heck are they going to prepare themselves to be thrown around a room with a towel around the neck? Waterboarded?
(I do understand that individuals that work in these professions are prepared in ways to withstand torture, but this as the whole argument for not releasing these memos - especially bc we don't even use them anymore - is ridic.)

On Awakening members in Iraq.

Great analysis of what is going on in Iraq with the Awakening tribes by Marc Lynch. I have mentioned him often here - he was Abu Ardvark, now writes at forrignpolicy.com with Tom Ricks and the likes, academic/activist always looking for possibilties for substantive legit reform in the region.

Troubled Argument.

In an oped today in the Wash Post, "Kurdistan's Troubled Democracy" Scott Carpenter and Michael Rubin make a shockingly troubling and inaccurate argument about elections.

(Not all that shocking, though, when one notices that they are from Washington Institute for Near East Policy and AEI.)

I could barely get past this line:

In Iraq, elections are critical. They improve security by legitimizing power relationships while allowing people to vent frustration. In the Jan. 31 provincial elections, Iraqis chose for the most part to "throw the bums out," selecting candidates who they thought would abandon narrow sectarian objectives and best address their problems at the local level. The question now is whether a similar degree of freedom will exist in Iraqi Kurdistan.

My response: In the past elections in Iraq, like 2004, legitimized and cemented detrimental, not to mention formerly nonexistent, sectarian identities, not 'power relationships,' whatever that means. Yes, in the January provincial elections of this year, there were steps away from this as many Iraqis chose candidates proven to deliver services or who supported a national identity over sectarian.

I do not know the intricacies of dealing between the two Kurdish political parties, the KDP and PUK, but I haven't heard great things. I hope to learn more about this when I am over in northern Iraq next year.

But in general, what we should NOT do now is push, or rush, elections like we did in 2004, in areas where there are volatile unstable relations between parties - in this case the PUK and KDP - like they were in 2004 between Sunni and Shii in 2004.

I don't know, again, I am not en expert on the KDP and PUK wranglings up there, but we shouldn't jump to elections as the solutions for political instability.

Paul Collier would love to argue with these guys. His argument is also mine here in response to Rubin and Carpenter. Please see my post on it here Paul Collier's argument - which he put forth in his recent book Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places - is that elections do not mean democracy and even are detrimental to democracy building if conducted at the wrong time, like when other democratic institutions do not exist. And, by the way, he came to this conclusions through an empirical study - he is an economist and he collected a ton of date for this. I've said this before, but I'll say it again, I believe democracy is worth pursuing in the region, just not a la Bush.

Russian and Chinese Revolutions and the Taliban in Pakistan (Yep, that's right, I'm drawing that parallel...loosely)

I was just sitting here in my kitchen on this glorious DC spring day, trying to enjoy my eggs, sausage and english muffin, reading the NYTimes, and of course was interrupted by an idea that compelled me to open my computer, which I swore I wouldn't do today, to post on the following.

Yesterday I posted on the article in the NYTimes that explains the Taliban's strategy in Swat, Pakistan - they exploited the unequal, uneasy relationship between wealthy landowners and disenfranchised peasants. The Taliban was able to address the grievances of the local peasants as so many leaders have throughout the past. We need to put this movement in context.

Last week I taught students about the Russian and Chinese Revolutions of the early 20th Century. In both countries (empires before the revolutions) leaders were able to hinge upon grievances of peasants and capitalize on anger toward foreign intrusions.

In China a nationalist, anti-imperialist revolution led by Sun Yat Sen got the ball rolling that would end in Mao and the communist party (KMT) takeover in 1949. Similarly in Russia, Lenin address unanswered complaints of discontented proletariat and landless peasants' with a communist ideology. Lenin also rallied people around his promise of a withdraw from WWI, during which the Russian population suffered greatly.

(These are both descriptions of these revolutions in a nutshell, they are much more nuanced, but I want to get this off before I have to go to my friend Claire's baby shower...grrr....(only kidding Claire, I am excited) bc if i don't I will be thinking about it the WHOLE time I am there.)

We need to pay attention to how and why the Taliban's message is appealing to some. I know people are starting to do this - ie Holbrooke and Adm. Mullen sitting down with tribal leaders asking them what they want.

Sure, most of the Taliban's appeal is that if you don't join they will kill your family (fear, terror) but they are also promising order, economic gain, and their rallying cry is criticizing US drone attacks, Lenin's WWI, Sun Yat Sen's imperialist spheres of influence.

I know that Communists and Nationalists are not the Taliban, but both are addressing local grievances, making their group appealing to local populations. We (or the Pakistan govt; doubtful) needs to try to address these grievances.

I guess my broader interest and point here is about revolutions - how and why they happen and and how and why some are successful and others are not. These extremists in FATA and in Pakistan are looking for a revolution; and we (US govt, Pakistan) need to treat it as such and look for legitimate ways to stop it. Force alone will not work here, especially not US force. (Why? We can't/ don't want to send troops into Pakistan for many reasons (I am sure there are several special ops teams there) meaning we can't execute a COIN strategy there, which is the only effective strategy possibly, as the premise of COIN is to live among and protect the local population from insurgents (here extremist Taliban).

Historical causes for the Taliban's wins in Swat.

Finally, an article today in the NYTimes with a little depth and history on HOW and WHY the Taliban were able to coax people to their side in Swat, Pakistan. (No offense to Dexter Filkins, bc I know you are reading, who has written great articles on what is going on NOW on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan.) Sure some of the cajoling is force, but a lot of it, according to this article, has to do with the fact that the the majority of the local population is disenfranchised peasants with no chance for upward mobility living under the social, economic and political control of wealthy landowners.

To takeover Swat, "...the militants organized peasants into armed gangs that became their shock troops, the residents, government officials and analysts said."

This was possible because, "Unlike India after independence in 1947, Pakistan maintained a narrow landed upper class that kept its vast holdings while its workers remained subservient, the officials and analysts said. Successive Pakistani governments have since failed to provide land reform and even the most basic forms of education and health care. Avenues to advancement for the vast majority of rural poor do not exist."

So the, "Sunni militancy is taking advantage of deep class divisions that have long festered in Pakistan..." They are not just "...promising more than just proscriptions on music and schooling" the are also "...promising Islamic justice, effective government and economic redistribution” which is appealing to the disenfranchised impoverished peasants.

Iraq: Elections are not democracy

Iraq is unfortunately proving the argument Paul Collier makes in his new book Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places, which I wrote about a few weeks ago.

From a NYTimes article today:

"Elections that were supposed to strengthen Iraq’s democracy, unite its ethnic and sectarian factions, and begin to improve sorely needed basic services — water, electricity, roads — have instead exposed the fault lines that still threaten the country’s stability."

Collier argues, in a nutshell: (see my post that includes a link to the reviews for more) When you half ass democracy building (just have elections) in countries that have NO other democratic/ civil society institutions it creates more violence, therefore giving democracy a bad name. (IE: Iraq.)

Also voter turnout in these environments is the equivalent of 'wearing football scarf' (great line) and doesn't mean much when all civilians are doing is casting a ballot and are not to the slightest extent engaged in their societies. (They don't know the candidates platform (also, the candidates don't have one) and vote based on ethnic or religious group or tribal and family connections.)

Civil society makes democracy real: rule of law, free press, free speech, freedom of assembly, transparent ballot counting, political parties based on ideas and ideology not ethnicity or religious orientation, security.

Elections are also a particularly horrible idea during sectarian bouts and times of ethnic tension because they simply cement these identities instead of working to erode them and create a national and political based identities. IE: Iraq (Sectarian, Sunni Shii identities created after the invasion because of the security vacuum were artificial and could have been done away with, but instead US calls for elections right in the middle of the height of their rise - and what do you get? Sunni boycott of the elections, Shii win power and Shii militias start to cleanse neighborhoods of Sunnis, further entrenching sectarianism.

In Iraq you have the worst all aforementioned worlds.

Documentary on Baghdad by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad

Four part film by award winning Iraqi journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad entitled "Baghdad:City of Walls". You can watch it all here on the Guardian website.

(Ghaith has a unique history, born Baghdad 1975, deserted from Saddam's army, lived on the DL for years in Iraq, emerged as a journalist after the invasion, won British Press Awards foreign reporter of the year 2008, shortlisted for a bunch of others, written for Wash Post NYTimes, Guardian.)

Intro from the Guardian:
In this unique four-part film, award-winning Guardian foreign correspondent, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, an Iraqi journalist and photographer, takes us back to his home city of Baghdad. In the week of the sixth anniversary of the US-led invasion, this film, made by GuardianFilms for the Arab news network Al Jazeera, gives an insider's view of the real impact of the invasion on Baghdad as it became 'The City of Walls'.

Wacamole, Pakistan style.

If you grew up in DC, you played wacamole at Funland. (OK that is totally DC-centric, I am sure they had wacamole at cheesy beach boardwalk amusement parks all over the country, and not just in Rehobeth.) There is clearly a more adult like game of wacamole going on in Pakistan, except this one involves drones, instead of a not a squishy mallet tied to a rope and militants instead of instead of plastic gerbils.

There have been many reports of this Pakistani wacamole, though I am definitely the first to call it as such. As the US drops drone bombs on the traditionally strictly autonomous regions in Pakistan (like FATA, federally administered tribal area), where the militants have been laying low and doing their thing since Pakistan was created decades ago, a variety of militant types are scattering into the central state. (By variety I mean some of them are hard core extremist, militant, red white and blue hating Taliban; some are people the former group have coopted out of fear and intimidation (Kilcullen's 'accidental guerrillas'), others might be folks who have lived in the region for a while and were recently ticked them off by drones dropping bombs on; I know there are other types in there, I am not going to try to describe the motivation of all of them.)

There was an article on this yesterday in the NYTimes. I will find other better ones and post them here tomorrow.

Filkins on Afghanistan

Another Dexter Filkins article on the US efforts at working with local tribes in Afghanistan.

Afghan women out in the streets.

About 300 Afghani women - Sunni, Shii, Hazari, you name it - were out in the streets protesting the new law that sanctions marital rape and restricts women from leaving their homes. Here is a line of Afghan women police protecting the protesters.

Some of the response of the counter-demonstrators response with:

“We Afghans don’t want a bunch of NATO commanders and foreign ministers telling us what to do.”

"Slave of the Christians." (Man I wish he knew the Catholic church's take on women, and how 'Christianity' has traditionally treated women. I mean painting women's rights as a Christian value is just backwards. )

OK, to be fair, we know what he means: women's rights = western value; west = invading, oppressive, occupier.

I am not saying I agree with these yahoos - I do not think that foreign policies alone have led to a lack of women's rights in the region and in Afghanistan - but they have played a role.

Holster your weapons cowboys; they won't work in Somalia.

Somalia might be as lawless as the wild wild west, but the solution to this anarchy is certainly not force.

This post goes out to Robert Kaplan, Ikle, Abu Muqawama(with mad respect of course) who recently in the press have made alarmist remarks about potential links between pirates and AQ, and between Somalia and Afghanistan, hence justifying, or seemingly justifying, the use of force.

Most troublesome was Robert Kaplan's comment this morning on NPR about possible strikes on pirate safe havens along the Somali coast. (I also commented on his article in the NYTimes last weekend below.)

I was equally disappointed in you, Andrew Exum/ Abu Muqawama, (if you're reading which you probably aren't, also, I usually like what you have to say) and your responses on Charlie Rose last night with Robert Kaplan drawing a glaringly inaccurate parallel between Afghanistan and Pakistan and Somalia.

Somalia is not Afghanistan nor is it Pakistan. They are similar yes because they are failed states, but they have different histories, different current situations, and are different socially, economically and politically.

Force didn't work in 93 and it sure didn't work last year. The US and Ethiopia went in and kicked out the Islamic Courts - I'm not saying they were the greatest thing to happen to Somalia - but after their ouster they radicalized and became more violent and more pesky and created the increasingly problematic Al Shabab extremist movement.

I guarandamtee that if we start strikes on 'pirate havens' or military strikes in general in Somalia, we are going to pull (AQ) Al Qaeda there a lot faster than any pirate could in his dingy boat. It might also lead pirates to link up with Al Shabab and radicalize them.

Most importantly, pirates are criminals, motivated by financial gain; AQ is not. AQ is motivated by political and ideological causes mostly, against policies, occupation, oppression. (This point was also made this morning by a scholar on NPR this morning, can't remember his name, Kaplan was on too.)

Preventing pirate attacks will be long term social, economic and political development in Somalia. In the meantime the best we can do is contain and isolate this threat. I know this sounds cheesy, but we should look to how Obama and friends dealt with it: even keeled, tempered, not upping the ante, not making this a bigger deal that it is so as not to rally and radicalize others.

Abu Muqawama and the COIN (counterinsurgency people had always said they never want to fight but develop these strategy if they have to. This is not one of those situations.

Joseph Nye: I'm your Woman

Joseph S. Nye had an important oped in the Wash Post today entitled "Scholars on the Sidelines" arguing that too few international relations experts and regionalists enter the policy world.

The whole reason I went to graduate school in Middle Eastern History was to do exactly what Nye says people are not doing: To learn about the region and its history so that I could then help help form more applicable and appropriate policies there, thus improving the state of countries their and our own standing in the world. Everyone else I meet in the field went and studied conflict resolution and policy studies, to me this wasn't as crucial: How the heck can you solve a conflict if you don't know the history??

So if you're reading this Mr. Nye (which you're not) I'm your woman.

I have found it difficult to break into this world - even with Arabic language skills, time in Morocco with Peace Corps, my graduate school regional studies, living in Syria, a few connections, several painstaking and outlandishly time consuming applications on USAjobs for State Dept, and at Avue Digital Service for USAID, taking but failing the FS exam by 5 points.

My friend Andrea, an amazing Arabic speaker and graduate school dropout, recently suggested we go down to State Dept wearing poster boards saying, "Hire me I speak Arabic'.

So if you see someone down there next week, that's us, honk and wave.

Ding Dong: Fred Ikle rings the alarm

And I thought it wouldn't get more alarmist than Robert Kaplan's oped yesterday, which I posted on yesterday, see right below this.

Fred C. Ikle, who I am not familiar with but who managed a job at CSIS, wrote an oped that was not worthy of publishing in today's Wash Post. It is alarmist and FULL of assumptions.

I decided to rank them.

And the winner is....

Gold Medal:
Ikle states that because terrorists are more brutal than pirates, they can easily force them to share their ransom money.
I try not to be to extremist on this site and to be tempered and rational, but this is too much. This is totally idiotic. It's like he is reducing the pirate- terrorist relationship to a bully and a nancy on the playground. It's Bush logic.

Silver Medal:
He writes that because America's military cannot establish law and order iit is an idea fortress for gloabl terroists. Actually where the military is creates haven fro terroists as well - ie, AQI in Iraq. There are many failed states int he world that are not terroist havens. The US military has a tough time creating law and order anywhere inth e MENA region. (This, by the way, is not a stab at the military by the way, it is a stab at bad policies that send the military into unwinnable wars.)

Bronze medal:
I have to go do other work, which I have been ignoring since I started this blog to a disgusting extent.

What do Chuck Norris and Somali pirates have in common? Read on.

Robert Kaplan has an alarmist oped on pirates in today’s NYTimes Week in Review section.

This sentence makes me cringe: “The big danger in out day is that pirates can potentially serve as a platform for terrorists.”

Reason No. 1 for cringe: He recounts in the first section of the article before this statement that pirates have existed throughout history; what he doesn’t say is “So has terrorism.” The world has managed to cope for thus long with both, Robert.

Reason No. 2 for cringe: ANYTHING can be POTENTIALLY be used as a platform for terrorists, like a hotel room 2 miles from the NSA (like the 9/11 attackers did), or like some crazy unstable psycho who was able to buy a weapon due to lack of smart gun control laws.

He also claims: “You can see how AQ might be studying them...[the pirates]' and then they might use their “...pirate techniques” AQ could also watch a Chuck Norris film and his techniques for their next terror attack. Glenn Beck, patriot numero uno, should really pick his friends more carefully. I personally think Chuck should be more discreet with his tactics; terrorists may be watching.

On that note, I hope all of you know about Chuck's new book, Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America. It's a must read.

Dexter Filkins article on the move away from militarization of USFP

Great article by Dexter Filkins (don't forget to read his book Forever War, gives amazing insight into the war from outside the green zone and through Iraqi eyes) in today's NYTimes Week in Review section, "American Power Puts on the Civvies."

The article focuses on the shift away from the total militarization USFP (US foreign policy) under Obama. "America's engagement withe dangerous parts of the world in that time [Bush years, since 9/11] became largely militarized good at projecting force but sometimes it seemed missing opportunities that might have been better exploited by an earlier and more virgorous use of people without guns." Holbrooke is a new "paradigm" emphasizing a "wide range of tools."

He uses as one example the informal meeting Holbrooke and General Mullen had with Afghan tribal leaders. David Ignatius also wrote about this last week; I posted on it here.

(Interesting sidenote Filkins points out: General Mullen offered part of his budget to the State Dept when he was chief of naval operations in 2007. This doesn't happen everyday.)

The article concludes with the story of a laugh shared among Mullen, Holbrooke and Afghan clerics.

Bush: Maxing and Relaxing (& policy institute name contest)

I just wrote this as a comment on my friend Andrea's blog, but I thought I'd put it here too:

If you're Bush or Rummy or Bremer (Cheney doesn't count bc he is so whacked), the only way you can continue to live is in a total state of denial sans reflection; Bush seems to be doing good job at this, with a tan, reports in the NYTimes.

I am so glad he is moving on, I wonder if Iraqis are doing the same?

The article in the NYTimes also mentions plans of Bush's new 'policy institute' (yes!!!) and drum roll...They're going to have 'fellows.' Where do I sign up? I mean, get in line folks. If that's not enough to make you wet the old pants like a bucket of warm water I don't know what is.

My guess of the first fellow: Sarah Palin.

I am going to spend the rest of my Saturday night (already spent totally, yet again, on this blog) thinking of names for this 'institute.' I WELCOME suggestions.

Coup Watch: Cheney, Malkin, Bachmann and Beck (and George Packer piece in the New Yorker)

George Packer has a great piece in the Talk of the Town this week in the New Yorker.

He raises the scary new line of 'reasoning' in right wing/ ultra right wing conspiracy theorist media world of Fox News' Glenn 'Cry Baby' Beck, Michelle Malkin, the website"Fire Andrea Mitchell" and Representative Michelle Bachmann.

Have you ever been to Malkin and 'Fire Andrea Mitchell' sites by the way? If not, you really need to check them out to be aware of what kind of scary crazy is going on out there. I seriously think the FBI should 'look into' these people Bush style. There is little to no doubt in my mind that Malkin, fireandreamitchell, Beck and Bachmann are stockpiling weapons as we speak in Dick Cheney's basement to overthrow the government; this is only because Cheney's first coup attempt during the inauguration did not work. (Please don't tell me I am the only one who thought that Cheney was hiding a gun in his wheelchair and was going to rise up angry-black-bear-in-the-woods style on inauguration day and lead America's first coup?? I know Seymour Hersh is with me here.

Packer includes the following about Beck:
"And Fox News’s Glenn Beck, who had earlier equated Obamaism with socialism and Communism, revised his analysis: “They’re marching us toward 1984. . . . Like it or not, fascism is on the rise.” Footage of goose-stepping Nazis played across the screen behind him.

OK I am going to tangent off on Bachmann for a second; I love every time this woman opens her mouth, because stuff like this comes out:

It’s under the guise of — quote — volunteerism. But it’s not volunteers at all. It’s paying people to do work on behalf of government. …
I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forum.
watch video here

And this:
“Where freedom is tried, the people rejoice. But where tyranny is enforced upon the people, as Barack Obama is doing, the people suffer and mourn.”

She's particularly on point at committee hearings when she tries to dupe the likes of Geitner and Bernake.

If I didn't think she would end up in the looney bin before any of this (below) came true, and I didn't want to see her and 3 other Minnesotans try to 'take' the White House, I would say arrest her for treason now:
"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States."
This also makes me mad at Bachmann for giving revolution a bad name.

My life isn't long enough to cite all of Malkin and Fireandreamitchell's bigoted conspiracy theory posts.

Back to George Packer (who by the way is one of my top five favorite people, also on list: Steve Coll, Seymour Hersh, Crooks and Liars writers). His best point comes at the end of the piece:

"This [referring to Bachmann and Beck and all these yahoos' rants] is what the historian Richard Hofstadter has called “the paranoid style in American politics.” In the world of intelligence, it’s known as mirror-imaging: in this case, seeing in an enemy’s mental structure a reflection of one’s own feverish simplifications. Conservatives will not be able to understand the elusive nature of Obamaism and counter its formidable appeal until they remove the impediment of their own insular, rigid ideology."

Women's rights in Egypt

Report on women's rights initiatives of the National Democratic Party (NDP) in Egypt in the Arab Reform Bulletin of Carnegie.

Haven't read it yet. I already spent two hours of my Saturday night posting Coup Watch (above) reading Michelle Bachmann quotes, scouring Fireandreamitchell, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck's idiotic 9/12 project; Egyptian women are going to have to wait until tomorrow.

Sweet sweet Somalia.

First of all, Somali pirates are ballsy. Thy hijacked ANOTHER US owned ship today with 16 crew members. (Both sides are sending more ships to the scene, making me think the world is about to witness people walking the plank a la Goonies.)

More importantly, a disturbing debate is starting about what to do about Somalia. The solution is NOT military involvement.

Please, please please do not further militarize our foreign policy. (See my post below...) COIN (counterinsurgency) and/ or military campaigns and/or targeted strikes will not only NOT solve our problems with Somalia (we think there might be extremists hiding out there), but it will also serve to WORSEN Somalia's problems - which are political economic and social - and are widespread and need to be addressed with long term policies that address the state in a comprehensive way.

COIN people have said that they never want to fight COIN campaigns, this is their chance - Abu Muqawama - to prove it by arguing against this.

First of all, every time the US has gotten involved in Somalia it ends up badly for different reasons. We all know about the 1993 Mogadishu disaster.

More recently, the US backed Ethiopian troops in their overthrow of the Islamic courts, plummeting Somalia into deeper anarchy and chaos and and conflict and contributing to the radicalization of the Al Shabab movement. They were angry they had been ousted from power, especially by the the US and Ethiopia.

Indigenous opposition to Afghan law

Important to note the indigenous opposition to the new Afghan law that would apply to Shii community. The Wash Post does in an article today.

Many legislators, politicians, activists, students and **moderate Shii clerics are fighting the law that would allow women to leave their homes only for 'legit cultural purposes' and would sanction martial rape.

This past week, Obama was asked about the law, he called it abhorrent. He also quickly redirected the conversation to highlight that US priorities in Afghanistan were to root out Taliban and AQ.

While the visceral reaction of many, like HR (human rights) activists, might be to criticize Obama for abandoning an HR agenda in Afghanistan and the broader region; but maybe he is encouraging that agenda by not aggressively pursing it.

Of course, international pressure, properly exercised, is important in furthering human rights, women's rights, rule of law, good governance around the world. But forcing these ideas and systems does not work. Also, currently our rep is tainted in the region. Association with the US currently can put what might be good causes in bad light. In terms of this law, the US should encourage indigenous groups and leaders to rally around reversing the law.

I mentioned this possible strategy below regarding Michelle Dunne's (Arab Reform Bulletin - Carnegie) comments that Obama did not discuss the D work (democracy) when speaking about Arab states in Turkey.

Public Diplomacy can't be a pig in lipstick.

Article in the National: "How Will Obama Turn his Gestures to the Islamic World into Action?"

Public diplomacy (done right, for example not sending anyone remotely like Karen Hughes ever again to the Middle East and remembering that there are actally several agencies meant to handle FP (State, USAID, Trade) and not just DoD) is extremely important, but so are actual policies.

To quote the many brilliant politicians as of late, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.

COIN (counterinsurgency) v. Reform

Professor Marc Lynch (GW, blog at Foreign Policy), academic - activist/student - advocate of legitimate indigenous sustainable political reform movements in the Middle East made a great point about how to wind down the war and violence in Iraq, countering somewhat many of the COIN (counterinsurgency)/ military people. I tend to agree with Lynch, while security is crucial, this cannot be solved by the military or even COIN.

Lynch:
"I think that it's hard for a lot of American commentators to really internalize this, because they are so firmly anchored in a U.S. military centric concept of the war where American strategy, troop levels, and will are what matters most. That, I suspect, is what animates the steady drumbeat of pessimism from my colleague Tom Ricks and many others. They have lived this war from the American side, embedded with American troops and American politicians and American debates in which Iraqis are viewed too often as passive recipients of American strategy or as problems to be managed. I understand it, but it seems evident that Obama really is thinking differently."

I have mixed feelings, for example, on talk on Abu Muqawama's blog of things like an 'iTough' (posting by an intern where Muqawama works (CNAS) cultural training for soldiers) which enables soldiers to have access to pertinent cultural information to assist in their war fighting.

I am so conflicted here. I understand that there were major improvements in Iraq (for Iraqis and the US troops) when soldiers stopped kicking in doors and started protecting homes. That soldiers are there providing security to the local population which is a good thing. But the long terms sustainability of this is questionable. I fear a military uniform might counteract any prowess the iTough provides; a gun detracting from a greeting said in the local dialect. I don't know.

I have discussed before (below) how COIN and military peeps seem to be taking over problem solving in the region; maybe it just seems this way bc Afghanistan and Pakistan are at the forefront of FP (foreign policy) right now.

Double D: How Development Leads to Democacy.

New Foreign Affairs article: "How Development Leads to Democracy"

Haven't read it all yet but thought I'd post it.

Don't drop the D!

Recently Middle East Strategy at Harvard (MESH - mentioned in the below post) had a forum of responses to Obama's speech in Turkey - I found Michelle Dunne's (of Arab Bulletin at Carnegie, former State dept.) response most interesting on Obama not mentioning the 'D' word (Democracy) in the part of his speech concerning Arab states - he only talked about it relating to Turkey. Maybe he did this bc US and Democracy's reputation are tainted there and anything we suggest will also be tainted. But the US definitely should not give up on encouraging growth of democratic insitutions in the region just bc Bush did it the wrong way.

"What was peculiar about Obama’s speech, however, was his strong emphasis on democracy (mentioned at least eight times) as the tie that binds the United States and Turkey in friendship, and yet his unwillingness to apply the same principle in the latter part of the speech to U.S. relations with the Muslim world. There, the “D” word was banned. Aside from the usual platitudes about “mutual interest and mutual respect,” Obama promised to promote the welfare of people in the Muslim world only in socioeconomic terms: education, health care, trade and investment. No objections to that, Mr. President, but what’s the plan for working with countries where the state stands squarely in the way of citizens getting those things? And that would apply to quite a few states in the Muslim world."

Great Harvard Middle East project

Just wanted to mention a great site/blog: Middle East Strategy at Harvard (MESH), a project of the Olin Institute Strategic Studies of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.

About MESH:

MESH is a community of scholars and practitioners who are interested in the formulation of U.S. strategic options for the Middle East. Since 9/11 and the Iraq war, the Middle East has occupied a place of primacy in debates over U.S. global aims and strategies. MESH brings together some of the most original thinkers in academe, research centers, and government, in a web-based forum for exchanging and disseminating ideas.
MESH members, who are selected on the basis of their accomplishments, contribute to a continuous exchange that includes these elements:
• A public multi-expert weblog where members analyze U.S. strategy and policy.
• A forum, MESHNet, where persons with a professional interest in the Middle East can test and exchange ideas.
• Middle East Papers, a series of occasional papers.

new book - Bullets to Ballots: Violent Muslim Movements in Transition

This book sounds terrific: Ballots to Bullets: Violent Muslim Movements in Transition. Reviewed here.

From the author, David Phillips:
My book is a post-mortem of George W. Bush’s counterterrorism policy. It is also intended as a guide for the Obama administration. Part of it consists of case studies of groups that are at various stages of abandoning violence and seeking their goals through political means: the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, Free Aceh Movement, and the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front. Some of these groups are making progress; others are back-tracking; while some groups are dividing into various factions. These case studies are considered within the context of world affairs since Bush declared his “Global War on Terror,” of which the book is deeply critical.

Goes well with what Rami Khouri (Daily Star) said the other night on 'On Point' with Tom Askbrook which I posted on here. Paraphrase of his statement:
As civil rights strugglers, MLK, turned to religion, as Desmond Tutu did for anti apartheid movement, so do Muslims turn to religion to frame and support their struggles for rights, justice governance and freedom.

Might be a nice compliment to another book that came out recently Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places which I posted on here; included is a link to the review in the NYTimes.

I wish I had been at this meeting.

I assume my invitation was lost in the mail, David.

In an oped in the Wash Post David Ignatius writes up a meeting between Amb. Holbrooke and Gen. Mullen and tribal leaders in and Paktia province in Afghanistan.

His description of the meeting gives me the chills; can someone please invite me to one of these? (Read: Please give me a job on a PRT!)

Whether this will work or not, it's a darn good try. During the get together Holbrooke and Mullen asked tribal leaders questions like this:
"What attracts the people to the Taliban?"
"Give us advice on reconciliation with the Taliban."
"What other suggestions do you have?"

These questions reminded me of what David Kilcullen was saying at his conversation last week which I went to with the author of this oped about his strategy in general and his new book Accidental Guerrilla. Kilcullen stated that one reason the surge/ new COIN strategy was effective against AQI was because soldiers started asking the people what would work.

General McKiernan's Afghanistan strategy

Walter Pincus had an article today in Wash Post on McKiernan's Afghanistan counterinsurgency guidance paper. (And it's a manageable 3 pages.)

Here are some points that Pincus highlights in McKiernan's report:

1. Focus on development and governance, not just security
2. Do not clear an area unless Afghan forces can hold it
23. Legitimize the Afghan forces - so people will trust them and choose their side not Taliban
4. Understand the nuances of Afghan culture
5. Learn what governance means to local population
5. enforce rule of law - support the shura (local council) do not choose side, pick outside power players
6. Build relationships with local population and Afghan security counterparts
7. Be visible; give Afghans credit
8. "Win battle of perception"
9. Encourage moderates
10. De-legitimize insurgents and extremists

Protests, or lack thereof, in Egypt.

Here are some reports on the April 6 protest in Egypt -apparently it wasn't all that, but there were still some people (100 or so, yikes) out in the streets.

Good analysis from a LA Times blog Babylon and Beyond. Were people not out in the streets due to fear of being arrested? Complacency/ lack of interest/ doubt in change? Excerpt:

The emerging April 6 youth group, naming itself after last year’s strike by textile workers in the Nile Delta, were the first to call for a national strike in protest of a vast array of political, social and economic maladies. In a statement circulated online, the group made several demands, including a minimum monthly wage of 1,200 Egyptian pounds (about $215), political reforms to put an end to Mubarak’s mandate and the halt of gas exports to Israel.

Today, the group organized a number of protests on Egyptian campuses, which authorities sought to thwart by arresting activists and holding concerts and sports contests to distract students.

A police source told Agence France Press that they were ordered to arrest anyone taking part in demonstrations and to deploy forces in sensitive spots around the country. Police had been reportedly deployed in the delta town of Mahalla, where labor protests culminated in riots last year.

Cordoned by riot and plainclothes police, protesters chanted anti-Mubarak slogans in front of the Egyptian Journalists Syndicate building in Cairo. They seized the opportunity to reiterate their vehement opposition to the looming possibility that Gamal Mubarak will succeed his father, shouting: “Gamal, forget about hereditary succession, and go ask your father to be more sensitive.”

From the Arabist. Arabist mentions criticism from Hossam Tamman of Al Ahram on lack of MB (Muslim Brotherhood) participation - their no show reveals the key contradictions and problems with the organization. Here is Tammam's full article.

In a replay of events last year the MB has declined to take part in the 6 April strike, although it says that it supports strikes as a form of political action guaranteed by the law and the constitution. Justifying its refusal to participate the MB said that as the country’s largest opposition group it should have been consulted. This is more or less what the MB said last year. The excuse is starting to wear thin.
The MB is not known for its ability to maintain alliances outside the circle of Islamic activists or to perform as part of a broad political front. This is a result of the indoctrination that goes on in a closed organisation run through a strict hierarchy and which demands blind obedience to its leaders.
Another reason that prevents the MB from cooperating with other groups is the self-importance it has acquired since it started outperforming other opposition groups in elections. The MB has developed a habit of lecturing others about the great sacrifices it has made over the years.
Even if this were true, harping can only alienate other parties, if not the public as a whole. The fact is the MB’s long history of suffering sometimes makes it act in an isolationist manner, as if it were a closely-knit clan, not a group seeking allies on the local political scene.

Women protesting in Pakistan.

Good for all of us to see women out in the streets protesting in Pakistan, in veils.

On Point conversation on local (Middle Eastern) feelings on Obama's US FP (Really excellent chat)

Really EXCELLENT conversation tonight on On Point with Tom Askbrook (listen here) of the following experts on regional (Middle East) feelings toward of Obama's foreign policy and some fp advice:

Ayad Allawi , former Iraq PM
____ Ali Reza, CSIS Turkey Project Director
Rami Khouri, Editor Daily Star (Lebanon newspaper)

Here are some points that stuck out in my mind on moderate Muslims, Shariah, and how Islam is used as a political tool.

On Moderates:
Moderate Muslim does not mean pro America or that that person is happy in their current state. Moderate Muslims actually have very similar grivances to extremists - social, political, economic - but do not use similar tactics. The US must reach out to them by changing out policies that in places support dictators and hence extremist agendas, if not terror groups will continue to prey on these moderates due to shared grievances.

On Shariah:
When Muslims say they want shariah, they mean they want justice, governance, a standardized system of law. Shariah has received a bad name here (mostly bc media here who know nothing about Islam #1 confuse it with tribal law which is really the body which sanctions honor killings and other horrific punishments and #2 because many pervert real shariah and media here accept this as the real shariah instead of questioning its legitimacy.)

****Key point on Islam in political movements:
As civil rights strugglers, MLK, turned to religion, as Desmond Tutu did for anti apartheid movement, so do Muslims turn to religion to frame and support their struggles for rights, justice governance and freedom.

When social and political systems don't address grievances, people turn to religion for help.

Khouri's advice for Obama: Don't just talk about common ground, talk about what average Muslim talks about on a daily basis - what they want: system of law, good governance, civil and political rights, rights as citizens.

Who you calling a moderate Islamic state? - Turkey

I read a couple articles that give Turkish perspective on Obamas visit. One was "Turkey in Full", an oped in the NYTimes.

The biggest deal to the Turks was that Obama did not call Turkey a 'moderate Islamic state' which it is not. This was basically what Bush and others called the state to support their own misguided foreign policy goals.

Turks HATE being called a moderate Islamic state - they consider themselves a secular democratic state.

COIN v. academic activist reformist regionalist Arabists

Interesting debate going on between COIN (counterinsurgency) people (CNAS, Nagl, Small Wars Journal, Kilcullen, military folk) and the Bacevich (professor BU, ex military) type crowd - the academic-activist- regionalist/Arabist-advocates for nonmilitary reform.

Michael Cohen (State dept...academic...writer) writes about it here and here. (I found this on Abu Muqawama's blog - he is kind of in the middle of this - ex military, COIN strategist, works at CNAS, but also has understanding of the region, working on PhD on Hizbullah.)

Like myself, I think the latter category (academic reformist activists from first paragraph) feels that the COIN industry is taking over the region! I know this is an exaggeration and totally dramatic, but I think it's kind of funny to put out there.

I mean check me out: I bought Kilcullen's Accidental Guerrilla and went to his talk the other night at the Willard on it and read Small Wars Journal. I also respect Kilcullen and Patraeus for playing a role in ending the civil war in Iraq.

They seem to me to be military humanitarians - COIN strategy being first and foremost about protecting the population. And these COIN folks only want to wage these COIN wars when they have to - no one is looking toward COIN to solve problems, but when you need it (Iraq, Afghanistan) you need it. I say the following as someone who wants to go work at State and /or USAID (looking to work on a PRT and do capacity building and governance work and eventually public diplomacy): No USAID worker is going to defeat the militant extremist Taliban/ AQI (maybe in the long run with economic, political and social development), they might coax the moderates out of the battles but not the extremists.

But I do understand/agree with what Professor Bacevich is saying:
"If counterinsurgency is useful chiefly for digging ourselves out of holes we shouldn’t be in, then why not simply avoid the holes? Why play al-Qaeda’s game? Why persist in waging the Long War when that war makes no sense?"

Violence continues in Iraq.

Another spate of attacks in Iraq in and around Baghdad; six bombs have killed 34 Iraqis and injured 110 in the past day. Details here at BBC, Juan Cole's site or McClatchy.

Here is what Cole took from AL Hayat on reasons for the increase in violence:

"The pan-Arab daily summarizes the explanations being proffered for the resurgence of violence in the Iraqi capital. These include: 1) the Shiite-dominated government's arrest of some Sunni Arab leaders of Awakening Councils, which may have angered Sunni ex-guerrillas and led them to take back up their former struggle. 2) The general failure of national reconciliation and the fight between major political forces. 3) The release by the US of large numbers of prisoners from its prisons. Many of these individuals were captured in the vicinity of a guerrilla attack but there is little formal evidence against them. 4) The recent removal of blast walls from some markets and other areas, allowing automobiles once again to circulate freely and so permitting the deployment of car bombs.

Me, I just think American observers called the war over too soon, and that a low-intensity conflict continues there. Despite the trope found in US news reporting, that "Black Monday" interrupted a long period of relative calm, in fact there has been a steady drumbeat of violence in Baghdad, Diyala and Ninevah provinces all along, which just isn't being reported unless a single strike is as big as Monday's. Yes, children. The "surge" did not entirely "work.""

Poll: Majority Americans Favor Engagment with Muslim World

Wash Post ABC poll out today says: (Article and charts here)


Majority of Americans think it is important that the Obama improve relations with the Muslim World

65% feel they lack understanding of the Muslim World

29% think it encourages violence, 58% do not, 13% don't know

If any of those 29% are reading this, doubtful shot in the dark, I encourage them to consider that what makes people engage in violence might be about lack of political expression and political channels, lack of economic opportunity, lack of social outlets in society, not Islam. Islam legitimizes violence; it does not create it.

Robin Wright (author of recent new book on reform movements in the region, Dreams and Shadows: The Future of the Middle East) mentioned on Tom Ashbrook's On Point last night after talking about the poll that the language of Islam and symbols of Islam are used in opposition movements, "they provide vocabulary for revolution" (she was talking about soft revolutions), in the Muslim World to combat dictators for example, but the west should not fear or overemphasize the importance of Islam as reactionary and revolutionary - it is not about piety and "Islam is a means to an end not an end in itself."

Colbert on Glenn Beck.

Colbert on Glenn Beck. (From blog postbourgie.com)

Take a minute and watch this; it is the funniest thing I've seen in months. Maybe a year.

When Will We Wake Up? (Article in Dawn on Pakistani govt deal with Taliban in Swat Valley)

Great article from Pakistani newspaper Dawn on the huge mistake the Pakistani govt made weeks ago conceding Swat Valley to the Taliban. These are not the moderates they should be co-opting, these are the extremists they should be fighting. The video of a 17 year old girl subjected to a public flogging, writhing in pain is clear evidence of this. One can only imagine how many times such acts have been carried out in Swat recently.

The article notes that it is not just the Taliban's treatment of women in Swat which needs attention, but also the actions of several men in the Pakistani government. A provincial minister in Sindh issued a death sentence to a couple who married against the will of parents. A current senator upheld a sentence for two women to be buried alive. Another ordered five girls be given to a family of murdered man as compensation.

I like this quote from the article:
"Such is the schizophrenia that assails us, which is evident in all walks of life and in all different class distinctions. Education in our case is no panacea for a mass state of denial when it comes to events happening under our combined eyes. It is amazing how the benefits of higher education swiftly rub off our elite classes when it comes to matters of tradition which glorify the violation of human rights."

Will recently resinstated chief justice Iftikar Chaudray take action?

Also relevant from Dawn, forum on "How Would you Define a Moderate Taliban?"

Turkey time.

Obama's speech to the Turkish parliament was a real piece of diplomacy. He spoke at length on many topics - shared goals, shared history (of atrocities), shared values. He discussed the country's potential to be a bridge between Europe (and the US) and the Muslim World. While it faces hurdles - welcoming the Kurds into the governing structure, pushing out hard line military figures and extremist nationalists, confronting the role Turks had in orchestrating and carrying out the Armenian genocide - Turkey seems on a path to being an industrialized state with economic opportunity, civil society institutions, civil and political liberties and a majority Muslim population.

Here is a video of the speech and here is the transcript.

By extending a hand to the Muslim World, Obama continues to isolate extremists, making it difficult for them to rally moderates under the banner of anti Americanism.

"America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaeda"

"Our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject," Obama told the assembly. " . . . The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together."

Article in the Wash Post on Obama's visit.
Article in Independent by Robert Fisk on whether Obama will fulfill campaign pledge and push Turks to recognize the Armenian genocide.
Article in Financial Times.
Juan Cole analyzes diffeent sections of the speech.
Report by Steven Cook of Council Foreign Relations, "The Evolving Role of Turkey in Mideast Peace Diplomacy."
Brookings Turkey reports/ articles archive.
Oped by Roger Cohen in NYTimes on a conversation he had with PM Erdogan.
I like this section from Cohen's article:
I asked Erdogan if Islam and modernity were compatible. “Islam is a religion,” he said, “It is not an ideology. For a Muslim, there is no such thing as to be against modernity. Why should a Muslim not be a modern person? I, as a Muslim, fulfill all the requirements of my religion and I live in a democratic, social state. Can there be difficulties? Yes. But they will be resolved at the end of a maturity period so long as there is mutual trust.”

The problem is, of course, that Islam has been deployed as an ideology in the anti-modern, murderous, death-to-the-West campaign of Al-Qaeda. But Erdogan is right: Islam is one of the great world religions. Obama’s steps to reassert that truth, and so bridge the most dangerous division in the world, are of fundamental strategic importance.

Synthesis begins with understanding, which is precisely what never interested his predecessor."