tdaxp

"The Big Bang spreads . . . the rough way," by Thomas Barnett, Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog, 7 October 2005, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/002427.html (from tdaxp).

"President's Radio Address," by George Bush, White House Radio, 19 August 2006, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060819.html.

As George Bush assumed power in January 2001, the Middle East was in a dire state. The al-Qaeda backed Taliban government ruled Afghanistan, while the noxious rule of the Arab Nationalist-Secularist governments (some in uneasy league with America, others opposed) ruled Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria. If al Qaeda was a rapist, doing damage quickly and violently, the Nationalist-Secularists were parents with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. While al Qaeda was more mindlessly violent, the National-Secularists had been disastrous for their states, rolling back the traditional governments and traditional societies that once existed in those lands. The National-Secularists, from the Ba'ath, to Fatah, to the rest, were politically and intellectually bankrupt.

-

Since then the situation has changed for the better. In three states the National-Secularists have been driven out: by the US military in Iraq, by the people in Palestine, and by a combination of internal factions and external pressure in Lebanon. And Afghanistan, of course, was liberated in Operational Enduring Freedom.



That these places are unstable is not proof that Bush's plan is failing, but that it is working. As the President recently said

It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East, Lebanon and Iraq, are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity.

The same is true, of course, when Palestine, where the Muslim Brother's local branch, Hamas, is squeezed between a justly hostile Israeli and unjustly hostile National-Secularist dead-enders.

If we are to judge the Global War on Terrorism by the standards of Thomas Barnett:

In the end, what will have to change for all this violence in the Middle East to stop is not our withdrawal, but political reform in the region. Keeping this fight suppressed, or having it exported to our shores like it was on 9/11 is certainly a safer route for the local authoritarian regimes. Then again, I think 9/11 put us past caring about those regimes' stability like we used to.

Bush basically runs a race with Osama: who can destabilize the region's regimes first? Both sides want change, but only one wants to replace the current autocracies with a religious dictatorship. What Bush wants solves the problem. What Osama wants merely extends it.

Then we are clearly winning this Long War. We destabilized Afghanistan, throwing al Qaeda out of their only State. We destabilized National-Secularist Iraq, and now contend with Iran (not al Qaeda) in seeing which of us has the most influence in that State. We destabilize National-Secularist Lebanon, and now content with Iran (not al Qaeda) in seeing which of us has the most influence in that State.

In this New Middle East we are building, we will have to be careful. We will have to deal wisely with the new regional indigenous hegemon, Iran. But we will not have to fear al Qaeda or the National-Secularists. They will be killed. That is why we can leave Iraq now.

---

A New Middle East, a tdaxp series
A New Middle East 1: Our Vanquished Enemies
A New Middle East 2: Iran
A New Middle East 3: Israel
A New Middle East 4: Islam is the Answer

"Terror suspects escape US Afghan base," by Mark Tran, The Guardian, 11 July 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1526159,00.html.

 

US forces today launched a manhunt after four prisoners escaped from Bagram, the main US base in Afghanistan.

The men, described as "dangerous enemy combatants", got away from the sprawling Bagram Air Base to the north of Kabul at about 5am local time (0130 BST), US officials said.

The Arabic television channel al-Jazeera quoted unnamed sources as saying the four men were Arabs, but a US official declined to confirm this.

 

So on what side does the military error: tying up inmates like dogs, preventing escape, or treating them in a way that isn't embarrassing in the morning, preventing moral isolation?

Come to think of it, why is the kill-people-and-known-down-stuff portion of our military handling prisoners at all? Shouldn't that be someone else's core competency? Like a System Administrator?

"US arrests Afghan 'heroin baron',' by Jeremy Cooke, BBC News, 25 April 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4483469.stm (from Democratic Underground).

What's more important? Not having Islamist murderers kill pilots, hijack planes, and crash them into buildings? Or "saving" you for your own stupid decisions?

The government's chosen for you

An Afghan man regarded by the US as one of the world's most wanted heroin traffickers has been arrested, American officials have announced.

Federal prosecutors say the arrest of Bashir Noorzai on US territory will be a severe blow to the Afghan drug trade.

A US federal indictment alleges Mr Noorzai has been at the centre of a multi-million dollar heroin operation.

He is expected to appear in a federal court charged with conspiring to import heroin worth $50m (£26m).

So instead of legalizing the drug-cash exchange, and allowing people to treat their bodies as they will, we make criminals out of Americans, Afghans, and everyone in between.

With policies like this, we risk shoving rich drug barons into the hands of our enemies.

But they also believe that the arrest may have wider implications, claiming that Mr Noorzai had close links with the Taleban and had used drug money to supply Islamic militants with arms and explosives.

Too late.

How many American soldiers will die to keep American drug users from Afghan drug suppliers? Because they sure are now.

"Indian foreign policy could do with some irrationalism, The Acorn, 8 February 2005, http://opinion.paifamily.com/?p=1230.

"Indian foreign policy could do with some irrationalism, by Sunil, The Acorn, 9 February 2005, http://opinion.paifamily.com/?p=1230.

No theme here, just a post and a reply that are both fascinating.

Was the American invasion of Afghanistan "irrational"? And was that a good thing?

Deliberate irrationalism involves giving an impression that in certain extreme conditions, a country will respond way out of proportion to the actual provocation. The most common example of this is the manner in which China retaliates when other countries even marginally scale up their engagement with Taiwan. The US invasion of Afghanistan in response to 9/11 is another case in point. Operation Parakram, when India mobilised troops to its border with Pakistan in response to the attack on its parliament is, arguably, an example of its only recent use by India. Therefore, threatening an irrational response, and being prepared to carry it out is a powerful tool of foreign policy.

Will British Indian Empire South Asian Muslims lead a worlwide Islamic consciousness?

Versions of Shah Waliallah’s political ideology are present in most parts of the Indian Subcontinent. The Pakistani version is the most virulent and most divisive. Most people do not realize (and I include all the so-called Hindu Right Wing ideologues I have spoken to in that number) that the “muslim minority” in India (150 Million) taken together with the populations of Pakistan (130 Million) and Bangladesh (200 Million) adds up about 480 Million people, roughly half the total population of Muslims in the world. Also bear in mind that *most* of the educated and well-off Muslims in the world are Indian citizens.

"Groceries and Election Results...," by river, Baghdad Burning, http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#110872871401791299, 18 February 2005.

The possibly-defunct Riverbend is skeptical of the Iranian leanings of the Iraq's popular new government

“And is Iran so bad?” He finally asked. Well no, Abu Ammar, I wanted to answer, it’s not bad for *you* - you’re a man… if anything your right to several temporary marriages, a few permanent ones and the right to subdue females will increase. Why should it be so bad? Instead I was silent. It’s not a good thing to criticize Iran these days. I numbly reached for the bags he handed me, trying to rise out of that sinking feeling that overwhelmed me when the results were first made public.

...

Is anyone surprised that the same people who came along with the Americans – the same puppets who all had a go at the presidency last year – are the ones who came out on top in the elections? Jaffari, Talbani, Barazani, Hakim, Allawi, Chalabi… exiles, convicted criminals and war lords. Welcome to the new Iraq.

Ibraheim Al-Jaffari, the head of the pro-Iran Da’awa party gave an interview the other day. He tried very hard to pretend he was open-minded and that he wasn’t going to turn the once-secular Iraq into a fundamentalist Shia state but the fact of the matter remains that he is the head of the Da’awa party. The same party that was responsible for some of the most infamous explosions and assassinations in Iraq during the last few decades. This is the same party that calls for an Islamic Republic modeled like Iran. Most of its members have spent a substantial amount of time in Iran.

Jaffari cannot separate himself from the ideology of his party.

Then there’s Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). He got to be puppet president for the month of December and what was the first thing he did? He decided overburdened, indebted Iraq owed Iran 100 billion dollars. What was the second thing he did? He tried to have the “personal status” laws that protect individuals (and especially women) eradicated.

Ignoring the fact that SCIRI wants an Iranian-style Guardian Council while Dawa is quietest, these American-Iraqi-Iranian common interests are great news.

I've mentioned the Iraq War's objective of forcing common interests with Iran. Iran is a cynical and realistic power, and Bush is wisely building a natural alliance with the future democratic government.

Around the dial

• Pakistan is a failing nuclear state whose core competency is causing trouble. From potentially ending Indian demand for Middle East oil (by provoking a nuclear war) to incitement of anti-Shia violence, Islamabad is trouble. It is trouble for both Tehran and Washington.
  
  
• Afghanistan is a weak state and should be kept that way. "Strong" Afghan states tend to be run by Pashtuns who join their Paki brothers in killing foreigners (Russians, Shia, and Americans being favorite targets).
  
  
• Turkmenistan is a crazy Stalinist dictatorship. Iran has a history with Stanlists regimes -- it fought an eight year war with Ba'athi Iraq.
  
  
• Russia and the Caucuses answer the age old question: "What happens when violent, fanatical extremists encounter a violent, decaying empire?" Salafists and the Russian Army have joined together in destroying Chechnya and retarding peace efforts in Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Iran fought a war against Taliban Afghanistan in the 1990s - it does not need a string of failed states to its northwest in the 2000s.
  
  
• Iran's enlightened ethnic policies have kept its Kurds relatively happy, and led to natural ties with Kurds across the Turkish and Iraqi frontiers. Kurds are also military allies of the United States and Britain since the 199s0.
  
  
• Likewise, Shia Iraq is an ally of both America and Iran. The American dream of democracy and the Iranian dream of Shia rule combine in Iraq as nowhere else (except Iran itself). If either party gets bored of the relationship, the Salafists-Ba'athists will make sure they remember.
  
  
• Across the Shia Gulf, the occupied nation of Eastern Arabia suffers under the Wahabi yoke. The Saudis' "hanging around guys" cause trouble for us, too.
  

The Bush Administration's successful dance with Iran has been incredible. Keep up the great work!

"Three day tour: Karzai visits India, NDTV, http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Three+day+tour%3A+Karzai+visits+India&id=68978, 23 February 2005 (from Free Republic).

More on India's bridge building

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai arrived in New Delhi today on a three-day 'working' visit for talks with Indian leaders.

The visit is also expected to explore the possibility of a $3.3 billion gas pipeline project from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan Pakistan and then India.

Karzai is leading a high-level delegation including eight Cabinet ministers.

The visit comes just a week after External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh pledged continuing assistance to the war torn country.

India has already pledged aid to the tune of $400 million to rebuild the country.

New Delhi is expected to sign a series of agreements in the areas of high tech, medical assistance and aid.

India has become a pillar in the globalization system. It is also a good neighbor, always encouraging its neighbors to accept more connectivity. I doubt any of these deals will change life much for the average Afghani, but it shows that India is propelling South Central Asia in the right direction.

Update: Brian sees this as tying India to Turkmenistan.

"Chemical War Over Afghanistan: Poison Snow in the Hindu Kush?," by Nick Meo, The Independent, http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/12/1707974.php, 1 December 2004.

You are the world's last superpower. You are engaged in a struggle against a death cult that is trying to kill thousands of your citizens. The key to permantly destroying this cult is to increase economic connectivity. The enemy has sworn to kill you because they hate your freedom.

Poisoning thousands of poor farmers to protect your own citizens from themselves might not be your wisest option

British officials in Kabul have been questioned by President Hamid Karzai after fields were reportedly sprayed with chemicals from the air two weeks ago, leaving farmers sick. The Kabul government is keen to find out who could have carried out the alleged spraying, which it considers illegal, despite a stated desire by the US and United Nations to wipe out the opium crop.

The Afghans set up an inquiry into claims by villagers near the eastern city of Jalalabad that mystery aircraft had sprayed crops. The British ambassador was called in for questioning and a protest was lodged with the US after Afghan officials concluded that fields had been crop-dusted despite Mr Karzai being opposed to spraying.

Britain, which takes a lead role in drug eradication, is opposed to aerial spraying, which is credited with massive reductions in cocaine output in Colombia but at a heavy cost in damage to human health and the environment. Many in Washington have been pressing for aerial eradication to begin in Afghanistan, however.

Update: Praktike at Liberals Against Terrorism chimes in: "Worst Idea Ever."