Foreign Policy Incompetence - Pakistani Edition

The Obama administration gets much well-deserved criticism for its incompetent and ineffective domestic policies. But it is always worth pointing out that administration incompetence also extends to foreign policy. Today we had another reminder.

Last Thursday Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, touched off a major diplomatic crisis with Pakistan when he said the following things:

[He] told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Pakistan’s spy agency was tied to the attack on the U.S. embassy last week as well as the truck bombing on Sept. 10 that wounded 77 American soldiers. ... Mullen told the committee the Haqqani network “acts as a veritable arm” of Pakistan’s intelligence agency.“In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy, the government of Pakistan, and most especially the Pakistani army and ISI, jeopardizes not only the prospect of our strategic partnership but Pakistan’s opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence,” Mullen said. “They may believe that by using these proxies, they are hedging their bets or redressing what they feel is an imbalance in regional power. But in reality, they have already lost that bet.”

These are things that should never have been said unless A) we meant them, and B) we were prepared for the obvious Pakistani reaction and felt that somehow they would produce positive results. Apparently the Obama administration was too clueless to figure that out. Now that the damage has been done, it is trying to backtrack. From the first NYT link,

Asked on Wednesday whether he agreed that the Haqqani network was “a veritable arm” of the ISI, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, told reporters, “It’s not language I would use.”

He pivoted quickly to say the Obama administration is united in its assessment that “links” exist between the Haqqani network and the ISI, “and that Pakistan needs to take action to address that.”

If that wasn't the language they wanted used, it shouldn't have been used by the senior military leader of the United States. The damage is already done.

Atheists in Pakistan

Pakistan is not a place you'd expect to find an atheist organization. But thanks to the internet there is a group called Pakistani Atheists and Agnostics (PAA).

How did the idea to bring together Pakistani atheists on a single platform come up? “When I became an atheist, I honestly thought there were no others like me in Pakistan. Through discussions on various social networking groups and forums, I found a few others like me. So we decided to make this group to find out how many more were out there,” says Hazrat NaKhuda, one of the founding members of the group. For obvious reasons, the PAA members go by pseudonyms to protect their identity.

It is a hopeful sign that even in hotbeds of religious extremism like Pakistan, some, especially young people are turning away from religion.

“Extremism is not the primary reason why people leave Islam. But looking at recent converts, I can say that it has become one of the reasons why people start questioning the religion of their forefathers,” explains Hazrat NaKhuda, who personally believes that religion does not make sense in this age. “Most people are following the beliefs of their parents and have no reason to proclaim that what they have is the truth. Once one realises that, it is fairly simple,” he adds.

Another member says,

we are taught that if only we turn to god, to religion, we will find answers and peace. When people, especially young ones, do that, and find that there is merely rhetoric, they feel rather disillusioned with religion, and that consequently pushes them away,” she says. “Another reason is that we are living in a progressing society. The whole world is undergoing a slow change in which it is leaving behind old religions and turning towards fixing a world, the problems of which are solely ours, not to be solved by a divine hand. ... The rapid progress of science has helped this process.

The whole article is interesting.

Money Down a Hole

The U.S. continues to pour money into Pakistan with very little to show for it. The Christian Science Monitor has an article up called, "US aid in Pakistan: Where's the money going?" The answer to that question is: we don't know. According to the article, since 2002 the U.S. has given Pakistan $20.7 billion in aid, more than 2/3 of it to the military.

The US reimburses Pakistan for costs associated with the numerous military operations launched following US goading.

But the Defense Department has failed to obtain enough information to judge whether $2 billion in claims were valid, according to the government accountability office. Their 2008 report found evidence of double billing or repayment for unrelated or nonexistent efforts, including $200 million for radar upgrades – even though militants have no air force that would require such radar.

And you can bet that documentation on the rest of the aid is only slightly less shaky. As in Afghanistan, we are simply pouring money down a hole. And for all this money, we get Osama bin Laden living more or less openly a short distance from major Pakistani military facilities. We also get attempts to shoot down NATO helicopters, safe havens for the Taliban, significant Pakistani military & intelligence ties to terrorist groups, and the use of money that is supposed to fight terrorists going instead to beefing up defenses against our friend India. On top of all that we get constant whining about our actions, outrageous demands, and complete refusal to allow us to direct where our own money is going. Lately Pakistan has even attempted to blackmail us, implying that it will cozy up to China if we dare re-evaluate the massive aid that they feel entitled to.

Pakistan is not our friend and is an ally in little more than name only. In our dealings with it, as with many other countries, we have relied far too much on the carrot and not enough on the stick. No further aid to Pakistan should be extended without tight, binding restrictions. Pakistan's demands and blustering should be treated as the bluffs of a weak country and called. There are plenty of threats of our own that could be made to Pakistan, starting with suggestions that the U.S. might draw much closer to India, including supporting Indian territorial claims. The Osama bin Laden situation has given us the opportunity to cut Pakistan down to size. We should take it.

Bin Laden Finally Eliminated

I was watching the Phillies - Mets game, still in progress as I write this, when the announcement came. Bin Laden, aside from being a murderous enemy, was a tough survivor. The Soviet Union couldn't manage to kill him, and we've been after him for at least ten years. As many suspected he was hiding out in Pakistan. It's great to see the U.S. pull off an effective covert operation, kill our most wanted terrorist enemy, and sustain no casualties in the process.

Covert teams assigned to kill enemy leaders should be one of our main weapons in this asymmetric war against radical Islamic non-state terrorists. It's unclear exactly who comprised this particular team, but based on first reports it appears to have been a CIA/military collaboration.
The death of Bin Laden should send a message to other enemies that if we can find and kill him, we can kill them too.

Raymond Davis and Bad Allies Revisited

Before I comment on the Raymond Davis situation, let me call your attention to a post I wrote over two years ago called, "Bad Allies." Among others, I identified both Egypt and Pakistan as bad U.S. allies, with Pakistan at the head of the list. In light of the recent events in Egypt, here's what I had to say back then.

the Egyptians basically despise the U.S., take our money and weapons, and unlike the Saudis, provide us with nothing. Could we actually count on Egypt in any sort of crisis? Of course not. Egypt is a powder keg with strong radical Islamist elements, kept in check by a vicious dictatorship. Even more than Saudi Arabia, our alliance is with the government only. The people hate us. It could go from ally to enemy overnight, similar to what happened with Iran.

Well, the powder keg went off, now the only question is whether it will produce harmless fireworks or a nasty damaging explosion. As for Pakistan,

It's basically an ally in name only, and has only cooperated somewhat during the war on terror because the Bush administration put extreme pressure on it. Our relationship with Pakistan has prevented us from having closer ties with India, which, aside from being larger and more important, is actually a democratic state and should be a natural U.S. ally.

We now have a situation where Pakistan is holding an American consular employee, Raymond Davis, who apparently killed two men who were trying to rob him. A third man was also struck and killed by a consular vehicle responding to the incident. The LA Times has a brief synopsis of the incident,

At the time of the incident, Davis had been working out of the U.S. consulate in Lahore. He claims he fired in self-defense after the two men, Faizan Haider and Fahim Shamshad, pulled up on a motorcycle and one of them pulled out a gun. Davis fired several shots through his car's windshield, then got out of the car and continued to fire, witnesses said. A police report on the incident states Haider was shot three times in the front of his body and twice in the back. Shamshad also was shot five times, twice in the back. Pakistani police officials have said both Haider and Shamshad belonged to a local robbery gang and had stolen cellphones with them.

Despite the fact that even Pakistani police report that the men were known criminals, the anti-American populace, filled with conspiracy theories involving the CIA, wants vengeance on the evil American enemy. They want Davis tried for murder and executed. The weak Pakistani government is caught between the wishes of its population and its alliance with the U.S., a relationship that includes massive American aid. The Washington Post covers the complicated diplomatic issues in its "Fact Checker" column, and then gutlessly refuses to take a position. But it does offer the following statement.

If the State Department is correct and Davis was identified as a member of the embassy's administrative and technical staff when he arrived in Pakistan -- and he was accepted by Pakistan on that basis -- then he should be covered by the Vienna Convention and receive diplomatic immunity, no matter what his job was or how heinous his crimes. The United States has upheld that standard in the past, letting alleged criminals go free. It also does not matter what agency Davis works for back in the United States

From this U.S. perspective the situation is obvious. Davis has diplomatic immunity and Pakistan must respect it. So far the Obama administration has acted correctly to defend U.S. interests, insisting that Davis be released to U.S. custody and threatening to cut-off aid if he is not. There should be no compromise on this issue.

In my opinion, if news reports are correct, this case is clear. Davis was the subject of an attempted robbery. The robbers picked the wrong person and he responded with deadly force in self-defense. The number of shots fired, and where the criminals were struck is irrelevant. I have to laugh when I see read the ridiculous justification given by Pakistani police for charging Davis with murder. It sounds just like something you'd hear from some pro-criminal liberal in the West.

Police believe the shootings were unjustified because, although both men were armed with loaded guns, their pistols did not contain a bullet in the chamber. Also, both men had been shot in the back. "If the accused really acted in self-defense, he could have fired one or two shots to the lower limbs of the victims, particularly since he is an expert in using weapons,"

Yeah right. So Davis, alone in a foreign country and accosted by multiple armed men is supposed to know whether or not they have rounds chambered. Let's just ignore the rest of the situation entirely, such as the fact that he was driving and the attackers were on motorcycles. Let's pretend that he could selectively pick shot locations in that type of chaotic situation, and ignore the fact that bullets could strike any part of the body. Had Davis been a Pakistani businessman, police would probably have quickly released him after congratulating him on ridding the streets of a couple of criminal gang members. Davis was charged with murder only because he's an American who killed Pakistanis. The U.S. cannot and should not tolerate trumped up charges against any American, let alone someone with diplomatic immunity. That goes double for a country that is receiving massive amounts of both military and humanitarian aid from the U.S.

Laughing at the New America Foundation

The liberal New America Foundation just released a new poll taken in Pakistan's tribal areas. The foundation uses this poll to draw the sweeping conclusion that the U.S. drone assassination campaign is "self-defeating." Why? Because locals don't like it. Seriously.

What our poll suggests is that if the premise of the American counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan is winning the support of the population, the United States is in danger of losing that support in the Taliban's rear bases inside Pakistan.

Except that the drone campaign and our counterinsurgency strategy inside Afghanistan are two different things. I'm not sure if the New America Foundation is too clueless to recognize the difference, or just being intellectually dishonest. The drone campaign is not intended to win hearts and minds, pacify & secure territory, protect civilians, or do any of the other things that make up our counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. It is intended to kill people that we have no other reasonable means to get at.

Is it even the slightest bit surprising that people living in the area don't like the drone campaign? What people would appreciate having a superpower sending killer robot aircraft over its villages to rain death on unsuspecting targets? Since the wrong targets are sometimes (often) attacked, and anyone who happens to be nearby can be wounded or killed, who in their right mind living in the Pakistani tribal areas would be supportive of this strategy?

So we can pretty much laugh at the main results of the poll as completely obvious and virtually meaningless. And then there is this gem of analysis.

The antagonism to U.S. policies in the region does not spring from general anti-American feelings. Almost three-quarters of the people in the tribal area said that their opinion of the United States would improve -- most by a great deal -- if the United States increased humanitarian aid and visas to work or study in the States.

Really? If we gave them a ton of money, let them into the U.S., and gave them jobs they'd like the U.S. better? So let me see if I've got this straight. According to the New America Foundation, Pakistanis who don't like U.S. policies would like us better if we changed our policies, gave them more money and did all sorts of other things they'd like. That's some genius analysis right there. Obviously it must mean they aren't motivated by anti-American feelings. I guess there's no point in mentioning that we already give a ridiculous amount of aid to Pakistan, and led the international relief effort after the latest flooding.

The poll also finds that the same Pakistanis would supposedly support action by the Pakistani military against the targets the U.S. is attacking. Too bad the Pakistani military is both unwilling & incapable of dealing with the situation. They are too prone to see the Afghan Taliban as a strategic asset, and can't control the tribal areas in any case.

The drone campaign has nothing to do with making Pakistani tribesmen happy or sad, it's about killing enemies of the U.S.

What Actual Persecution of Muslims Looks Like

A Pakistani-American returned to Pakistan after 20 years in the U.S., only to be murdered. Why? Because he was the wrong type of Muslim. The former native of Germantown, PA, Habib Peer was an Ahmadiyya Muslim, a minority sect that has four million adherents in Pakistan.

That nation's four million Ahmadis are forbidden by law to publicly practice their religion, and they can be jailed for blasphemy if they greet Sunni or Shiite Muslims with the traditional "salaam alaykum" or wear Muslim garb.

Mainstream mullahs and imams denounce Ahmadis, with some blaming their presence for the floods ravaging Pakistan.

Mujeeb Chaudhary, Philadelphia resident, Ahmadiyya Muslim and brother-in-law of the slain Peer, said that some non-Ahmadi Islamic religious leaders even tell their followers that it is their duty to kill Ahmadis. Interestingly, Chaudhary was asked his opinion about the Ground Zero mosque issue.

Although some Muslims are upset by the resistance to a proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero, Chaudhary said he welcomed such debate as "proof of America's freedom of speech and freedom to practice religion."

It's good to see a Muslim speaking out in favor of free speech and debate, instead of demonizing critics as Islamophobes in an attempt to silence them, as with many mosque supporters. Chaudhary also noted that a new mosque will be going up in Philadelphia.

the Philadelphia-area Ahmadi community plans to break ground for a new mosque, with dome and minaret, on West Glenwood Avenue near Temple University. The plan, he said, has encountered no hostility from the neighborhood.

There's been quite a bit of nonsense lately bemoaning how Muslims are treated in America, when in fact most are far better off here than in their own Islamic homelands. There's unfortunately a certain level of bigotry, prejudice, discrimination and harassment of minorities here in the U.S. But it's useful to keep it in perspective. It's nowhere near what those who delight in condemning America would have you believe.

The Scale of Disaster in Pakistan

As the blogosphere wrangles over the Ground Zero mosque, the current disaster in Pakistan hasn't seemed to get as much coverage. But the sheer scale of the devastation raises all sorts of questions, not only about the future of that country, but about its impact on U.S. policy in the region. Here's Ralph Peters, writing in the New York Post.

Try to grasp that number. Twenty million people, overwhelmingly poor, have lost their homes, their slight "wealth" and their livelihoods. Thousands have died.

And international aid groups estimate that 3.5 million children are at mortal risk from diseases spread by polluted water and poor sanitation. Think cholera, typhoid, dysentery and common diarrhea -- the latter a killer among children in the developing world.

As Peters points out, this makes Hurricane Katrina "look like a thunderstorm." Even the Haitian earthquake, which attracted massive international attention and aid, pales before the scope of this disaster. And unlike Haiti, Pakistan is a nuclear power, home of the strongest branch of the Taliban, and full of millions of people with Islamist sympathies. The U.S. has pumped billions of military aid into the country in an attempt to keep it on-board in the fight in Afghanistan, with mixed results. We are now sending in large amounts of humanitarian aid. But the government, which was already shaky, now appears utterly incompetent to deal with the massive flood. Governments have fallen before because of their inability to respond to disaster. What will happen in Pakistan, and is there anything we can do about it? Peters argues that the Taliban will attempt to exploit the situation.

Islamist extremists will attempt to capitalize on the disaster by 1) providing local aid to the poor; 2) blaming the government for not helping sufficiently; 3) claiming that the deluge was a judgment from Allah for Pakistan's cooperation with the West and for not supporting jihad, and 4) spreading rumors that the US masterminded the flooding to take control of Pakistan and punish Muslims.

This is an extremely volatile situation. Desperate people often do or support things they would never countenance in normal times. And with a fifth of their country underwater, there is incredible desperation in Pakistan.

Karzai Has a Point

I haven't exactly been a big fan of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, but today he raised a valid point regarding the conduct of the war.

"The war against terrorism is not in the villages or houses of Afghanistan... but in the sanctuaries, sources of funding and training (of terrorism), and they lie outside Afghanistan," ... "It is a different question whether Afghanistan has the ability to tackle this," he said in response to a question about Pakistan support for the Taliban and why the conflict was dragging on. "... but our allies have this capability. The question now is ‘why they are not taking action’?"

It is extremely difficult to defeat an insurgency if the insurgents have safe havens and support outside the country where they are fighting. We are hitting them with the drone assassination program, but although a deadly form of harassment and disruption, that alone isn't going to eliminate their Pakistani bases. It is arguable that the Taliban can never be defeated until and unless Pakistan fully joins the fight on their side of the border. Half-measures against some Taliban elements are just not going to get it done. There are many problems with Karzai, but he's put his finger on one of the main issues.

Pakistan Leads the World in Porn Searches

Despite its relatively low percentage of internet users compared to major industrialized countries, Pakistan leads in various categories of porn searches according to Google Trends.  

Pakistan is "top dog in searches for 'horse sex', since 2004, 'donkey sex' since 2007, 'rape pictures' and 'rape sex' since 2004, 'child sex' between 2004 and 2007 and since 2009, 'animal sex' since 2004 and 'dog sex' since 2005".

I wonder if the fact that a significant part of the population subscribes to a particularly nasty version of Islam that promotes honor killings, forced marriages & punishment for rape victims, and the general subjugation of women has anything to do with the popularity of searches for rape & child sex porn. But I'm not sure what might explain the number of searches for various types of bestiality. 

Our Most Worthless Ally?

It's a tough question, with contenders like Turkey in the mix. But one country continues to stand out among the rest, and that is Pakistan. Despite billions in American. aid -- the last package was $7.5 billion -- the U.S. has very little to show from Pakistan as an ally. Even with its large military, Pakistan remains unable or unwilling to control its own territory, continuing to host a terrorist enclave on the border with Afghanistan. Now, a new report claims that the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, is funding the Taliban.

interviews with Taliban commanders in some of the most violent regions in Afghanistan "suggest that Pakistan continues to give extensive support to the insurgency in terms of funding, munitions and supplies."

"These accounts were corroborated by former Taliban ministers, a Western analyst and a senior U.N. official based in Kabul, who said the Taliban largely depend on funding from the ISI and groups in Gulf countries,"

We are fighting the Taliban, and providing massive support to Pakistan. In return they help us with one hand, allowing overflights for the drone assassination campaign, but with the other hand they fund our enemies. According to the article, Pakistan has links with the Taliban that reach all the way to the top of the government.

Pakistani President Zardari, along with a senior ISI official, allegedly visited some 50 senior Taliban prisoners at a secret location in Pakistan where he told them they had been arrested only because he was under pressure from the United States.

I doubt anyone in India is even slightly surprised by this report. For years now Pakistan has been  playing the same sort of double game, condemning terrorist attacks on India, but at the same time harboring and supporting the terrorist groups whose attacks it disavows. The last time a U.S. aid package for Pakistan was under consideration, the Pakistanis screamed and howled at even the minor conditions that were attached. There should be no more aid for Pakistan without far more rigorous conditions.

Restrictions on Intelligence Gathering May Have Deadly Consequences

It's a truism that intelligence is a key weapon against terrorism. The best way to stop a terrorist operation is to find out about it in advance, and nip it in the bud. Once an act of terrorism reaches the execution stage it is very difficult to stop, and we are reduced to relying on luck or the mistakes of the terrorist himself to prevent disaster. Marc Thiessen, writing in the Washington Post, argues that we may be "passing up chances to stop terrorist plots."

just a few months before Shahzad attempted to blow up a car bomb in the heart of Manhattan, U.S. and Pakistani officials captured the highest-ranking Taliban leader ever detained in the war on terror -- Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. This raises a critical question: Could Baradar have warned us about the Times Square attack?

That's a good question. As Theissen points out, the foolish legalistic restrictions placed on the CIA prevent us from gaining such intelligence. Instead we have to rely on the unreliable Pakistani intelligence service to take the lead conducting interrogations -- a service known to have close ties with Islamist groups.

officials said they have learned nothing from Baradar that could be used to track down other Taliban leaders, or inform the planning of U.S. military operations." The failure to properly exploit Baradar prompted the CIA to push for his transfer to a U.S.-run prison in Afghanistan -- a request that was apparently denied.

Apparently the ISI is taking its time getting information from Baradar, and allowing him to set the agenda.

It would be a different story in a CIA black site. But President Obama shut down the CIA's black sites and dismantled the agency's interrogation program.

And we may yet pay for those idiotic actions with a terrorist plot that escapes detection. The Obama administration is not even making use of the new interrogation unit it created.

he created something called the High-Value Interrogation Group (HIG) -- a less controversial alternative for questioning senior terrorist leaders like Baradar and KSM. Yet according to multiple media accounts, the HIG has not been deployed to participate in Baradar's interrogation. Why not? While the HIG is not authorized to use even the most mild enhanced interrogation techniques that could compel Baradar's cooperation, it was purportedly created for just such a circumstance. If the HIG is not going to being used to question the highest-ranking Taliban leader ever taken into custody, who exactly is it going to interrogate?

Another good question. I give the Obama administration credit for aggressively going after terrorist enemies both militarily and with its expanded drone assassination campaign. But by caving at least partially to the whining of terrorist rights supporters -- people far more concerned about the imaginary rights of foreign enemies than U.S. national security -- the administration has damaged our intelligence gathering capabilities, putting us in a position where we need even more luck than usual to avoid a terrorist strike. When we capture a known enemy terrorist leader such as Baradar, our primary concern should be gaining intelligence necessary to protect the U.S. What's better for U.S security, an extensive CIA interrogation with all options available to extract information, or relying on the cooperation of Pakistan's ISI? The answer seems pretty obvious -- at least if you aren't a terrorist rights supporter. But since that's no longer an option, let's hope our luck continues to hold, we continue to have people in the right place at the right time to spot terrorist plots unfolding, and that all the terrorists make as many mistakes as the last few. 

Terrorizing the Terrorists

That's a policy I've advocated for some time. And while I've had my doubts about the drone assassination program, according to the New York Times, it is working to spread terror amongst our enemies -- and that's a good thing.

Militants now sneak into villages two at a time to sleep, he said. Some homeowners were refusing to rent space to Arabs, who are associated with Al Qaeda, for fear of their families’ being killed by the drones, he said.

You know you have an effective terror campaign when neutrals, some of whom might even be sympathetic to Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, turn against them out of fear for their own safety. 

The strikes have become so ferocious, “It seems they really want to kill everyone, not just the leaders,” said the militant, who is a mid-ranking fighter associated with the insurgent network headed by Jalaluddin and Sirajuddin Haqqani. By “everyone” he meant rank-and-file fighters, though civilians are being killed, too. ... Tactics used just a year ago to avoid the drones could not be relied on, he said. It is, for instance, no longer feasible to sleep under the trees as a way of avoiding the drones. “We can’t lead a jungle existence for 24 hours every day,” he said.

If this report, and the statements of this militant are representative, then the drone campaign has indeed succeeded in terrorizing our enemies. They live in constant fear of the drones, and the civilian population is turning against them.

I've been skeptical of the drone assassination campaign because of the ratio of enemy to civilian deaths, the danger of backlash and destabilization within Pakistan, and the limitations of a strategy based largely on air power. But if stories like this one are correct, it seems to be working. 

Al Qaeda Civil Liberties Union

If you go to the main ACLU website and look under the the section called "Our Work," here's the header:

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

That's what a civil liberties organization should be doing, and in many cases, local branches of the ACLU do exactly that. But the national organization is looking more and more like not just a useful idiot for our enemies, but an actual enemy itself. It has consistently been attempting to promote expansive rights for hostile alien terrorists -- not just suspects, but known, self-proclaimed terrorists. That's bad enough. But with the terrorist rights promotion, you can write it off as foolish but well-intentioned. In the minds of ACLU types, and other civil libertarians, degrading the U.S. Constitution by granting the rights of U.S. citizens to stateless terrorist enemies somehow protects the rights of Americans. But today we have this:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit demanding the U.S. government prove its legal basis for targeted drone attacks overseas

Given the situation on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the drone assassination campaign, regardless of its drawbacks, represents the core of our offensive strategy against the Taliban & Al Qaeda in the area. These attacks have absolutely nothing to do with the rights of Americans, and should have nothing to do with the ACLU. By filing this lawsuit, the ACLU is deliberately attempting to undermine a major part of the U.S. war effort.  It is basically acting as a legal front for the Taliban and Al Qaeda against the United States.

Contractors Helping Kill Terrorists

The New York Times ran a big story about it today.

Under the cover of a benign government information-gathering program, a Defense Department official set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan to help track and kill suspected militants

That sounds like a good idea. Too bad we couldn't keep it secret.

The official, Michael D. Furlong, hired contractors from private security companies that employed former C.I.A. and Special Forces operatives. The contractors, in turn, gathered intelligence on the whereabouts of suspected militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent to military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said.

In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing, but unfortunately, Furlong is now in trouble.

Officials say Mr. Furlong’s operation seems to have been shut down, and he is now is the subject of a criminal investigation by the Defense Department for a number of possible offenses, including contract fraud.

If you go through the long article, it appears that Furlong's operation led to enemy deaths. That's a good thing. Unfortunately he apparently stepped on some toes at the CIA. This is just speculation on my part, but I'd be willing to bet that someone got upset that an outsider was running a valuable intelligence operation and decided to shut him down. If Furlong's operation did provide significant information that enabled us to target terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he should be commended and promoted, not prosecuted. We need people who can find creative ways to produce useful intelligence. And as usual, we need to do a far better job of protecting the secrecy of our operations. 

The Left and the Taliban Capture

It was pretty funny skimming through left-wing blogs today to see the reaction to the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. One of the the big themes is that this shows how effective Obama is against terrorism, supposedly discrediting criticism by people like Dick Cheney. A typical example can be found in the Washington Monthly. Steve Benen is an always entertaining window into left-wing thought. And although usually laughable, he doesn't come off like raving hate-filled loon, like many of his comrades on the left. Here's how he opens up,

The capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban's top military commander, is no small matter. It's a "major victory." Given that Baradar is the most significant Taliban figure to be detained since the war began, and his role in leading the Taliban's military operations, this is a success that may very well pay considerable dividends for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

That may be true. But if you've ever read Benen's stuff before, or paid much attention to the left in general over the last several years, it's hard to read that without laughing at the shameless hypocrisy on display. There isn't the slightest doubt that if this were 2007, and the capture of Baradar had occurred under Bush, that Benen would be telling us how meaningless it was, how it was just a case of "whack-a-mole," that Baradar would just be replaced by someone else, and that the Bush administration was utterly clueless in its management of the Afghan War. But since it occurred under Obama, it's a great victory. 

The thrust of Benen's article is that Obama should exploit the capture for political purposes, that this episode proves Obama is fantastic on national security -- which apparently only involves operations in Pakistan -- and that all criticism is nothing more than "an aggressive misinformation campaign." On the first -- he need not worry. The administration is more than happy to claim credit for just about anything, even the success of a war the President and Vice-President did their best to undermine when they were in Congress. I'm sure they won't be shy in using the capture for political purposes. Regardless of this success, most criticism of Obama on national security is well-deserved, and not affected in the slightest by the capture of a major Taliban figure.  Some on the right -- those willing to be fair to the president -- have already given him credit for his efforts in the Afghan War. That's why he's received substantial Republican support in that area. But national security is about a lot more than Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since Benen no doubt knows this, I'll just chalk up his assertions to the usual intellectual dishonesty. 

Drone Strikes & Secrecy

I happened to notice an article at MSNBC called, "Secrecy of U.S. strikes in Pakistan criticized." There are some legitimate concerns about the drone assassination program. Are the results worth the collateral damage, the public relations problems, and the destabilizing effects on Pakistan? That's a difficult question to answer. But one thing that shouldn't be in question is the need for secrecy. 

You'll hear many people claim that we need more transparency from the government, that secrecy is dangerous, and that openness is the best policy. What we actually need is far more secrecy, particularly when it pertains to the secret operations of secret intelligence agencies. Many of our problems in the intelligence arena stem from the fact that we have failed to keep secrets. But getting back to the article,

More information about the CIA-run program could help offset opposition in Pakistan and also assuage concerns that the strikes violate international law.

How ridiculous is that assertion? First, opposition in Pakistan has nothing to do with not having enough information. The fact that foreign drones are operating in their country and killing Pakistanis, whatever portion are innocent victims, is going to produce opposition. Providing information that shows that a high proportion of militants are being killed, will simply be dismissed as U.S. propaganda. Second, intelligence agencies such as the CIA are designed in part specifically to violate international law. Obviously assassinating people is going to be interpreted as being against international law. If it is in the U.S. interest to eliminate these targets, international law is irrelevant except for public relations purposes. And that's another reason to maintain as much secrecy as possible.

"I think the main concern for those of us looking at it from the outside is we don't know what the criteria are for the individual decision of whether to pull the trigger or not," said Paul Pillar, a former senior counterterrorism official at the CIA.

Here's someone that should know better. As a former member of the CIA, he should be aware that he doesn't have a need to know. Sorry, Paul. Operational security is far more important than your desire to feel good about the drone assassination program. And then of course there are the usual suspects.

Several different groups, including the U.N. and the American Civil Liberties Union, have pressed the U.S. to reveal who it is killing in the strikes but have so far been rebuffed.

And they should continue to be rebuffed. The ACLU is an open supporter of terrorist rights, and the UN clearly can't be trusted with any sensitive information.

The U.S. government refuses even to acknowledge the drone program in Pakistan

The Obama administration is doing exactly the right thing in refusing to release more details. The less revealed the better. 

Education in Pakistan

What about it, you may ask? Why is this of interest to an American? You are going to pay for it, that's why.

The United States plans to spend USD 200 million this year on education in Pakistan, the U.S. Agency for International Development's largest education programme worldwide, it said. 

The idea is to improve the capacity of Pakistan's fledgling civilian-led administration, and to promote trust between the two nations, the report said.

And believe it or not, this is being touted as an anti-terrorism measure.

With a curriculum that glorifies violence in the name of Islam and ignores basic history, science and mathematics, Pakistan's public education system has become a major barrier to US efforts to defeat militant groups thriving in the country, Washington Post quoted American and Pakistani officials as saying.

Yeah, I'm sure the public education system, no matter how bad, is a main reason fanatical, extremist Muslims turn to terrorism. No doubt a U.S.-assisted curriculum will work wonders to solve the problem. Let's hope they won't be importing leftist American teachers to portray the U.S. as responsible for many of the world's ills.

This program is part of our overall $7.5 billion aid package to Pakistan. Apparently with so much money to give away, we just weren't sure exactly what to do with it all and decided to experiment. It's also unlikely that the Pakistani government, which was up in arms about all the strings attached to aid, would actually allow us to meddle with their public education in any substantive way. This is just more U.S. taxpayer money thrown down a hole.

Indian Quick Strike Strategy

I just noticed an article at the Times of India detailing Indian war doctrine, which underwent a shift following the 2001 terrorist attack on parliament. In the aftermath, India concluded that its mobilization was too slow, allowing the enemy (Pakistan) time to react, and opening up a window for international intervention to forestall Indian military action. According to the article, current Indian doctrine calls for rapid mobilization, and overwhelming offensive action. It's described as "`pro-active' war strategy to mobilise fast and strike hard to pulverise the enemy," from a "cold start."

The plan now is to launch self-contained and highly-mobile `battle groups', with Russian-origin T-90S tanks and upgraded T-72 M1 tanks at their core, adequately backed by air cover and artillery fire assaults, for rapid thrusts into enemy territory within 96 hours.

Although it makes sense from a military perspective, you have to wonder if such a strategy might make war more likely. If a major terrorist act tied to Pakistan strikes India, will India launch a rapid attack before all the details are in? Obviously it didn't happen after the Mumbai terrorist attack, but the next time could be different. At any event, the article is an interesting glimpse of Indian strategic thinking.

Guarding Pakistani Nukes

According to reporter Seymour Hersh, the U.S. has a secret program in place to secure control of Pakistani nuclear weapons in the event of some sort of crisis. The understanding with the Pakistani military

would allow specially trained American units to provide added security for the Pakistani arsenal in case of a crisis. At the same time, the Pakistani military would be given money to equip and train Pakistani soldiers and to improve their housing and facilities - goals that General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Pakistan Army chief, has long desired

Hersh is not exactly a reliable source, but such a program sounds like a good idea. Naturally the Pakistanis deny it. If true, this is yet another example of a lack of secrecy where secrecy is needed. Although we can't prevent Pakistani leaks, Hersh seems to have U.S. sources. Any suggestion that the U.S. might have any role in guarding the Pakistani arsenal is highly unpopular in Pakistan. But unpopular or not, let's hope it's true. The last thing we need are Pakistani nukes falling into the wrong hands.