The President's speech on Afghanistan was called adult by some commentators.
Only I'm afraid it wasn't.
That's because, like President Nixon's Silent Majority speech on Vietnam 40 years earlier, it told only half the truth.
The President's strategy of a quick build-up, and then a quick draw-down, in Afghanistan only makes sense as part of a larger Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy.
Just as Nixon didn't tell America about his secret war in Laos or his plans for Cambodia, so President Obama did not discuss the dirty war the CIA is waging now, and will continue to wage, in Pakistan.
This is not because we're children, and it's not because we can't handle the truth. It's because telling the truth about a secret war means it's no longer a secret, and this must remain a secret.
Ostensibly, Pakistan is a democracy. It is sovereign. Interference from Americans, or anyone else, is thus forbidden.
But it's also necessary if Pakistan or the United States are to achieve the real objective here, which is to eliminate the Al Qaeda threat in the region.
Right now an attack by Pakistan or anyone else in the tribal areas will just cause Al Qaeda to jump into Afghanistan, where the central government is weak and where they have Taliban allies on the ground. But at the same time, an attack by Americans in Afghanistan would cause those same Al Qaeda operatives to jump back across the border into Pakistan.
The two attacks must be coordinated. They must occur simultaneously. There must be no way out of the box.
But is Pakistan capable of carrying out its part of the bargain? Not entirely. Not by itself. A second, secret front must be opened there, an intelligence front, inside the souks, through all the major cities, a front in which Pakistani, American, and European agents are all sharing intelligence and acting in a coordinated manner.
That's the plan. But the President could have, and should have, done more. If he has, then he is really the Jedi Master he pretends to be, and it would be wrong for him to tell us about it.
China and Russia need to be brought on board.
China and Russia face a much greater threat from a nuclear-armed Al Qaeda than we do. American commentators may wake up from nightmares of suitcase bombs, but Russian children know the reality of Chechen bombings in their own capital city, and Chinese children are probably told, late at night, about the internal threats from Uighur unrest that came up just a few months ago, and scared the shit out of the authorities in Beijing.
Admitting this interest, and coordinating efforts in all three powers, would run into opposition in all three countries and threaten all three governments. But it is necessary if the objective of those three governments is to be achieved, if the safe havens of Pakistan and Afghanistan are to be wiped out, and if conditions are to be put in place that keep them from re-appearing.
If those conditions are put in place then it doesn't matter, in 2011, if Taliban are ruling in Kabul. The game is Al Qaeda.
If what the President said yesterday is all there is to this, then it's crap. He just pulled a Nixon on all of us — it was a political speech that will not work strategically. If there are a lot more moving parts under the water, however, that's different.
But to say so is to give away the game. So, like Nixon again, President Obama must tell us only part of the story, while working the Great Game secretly, beneath the surface, and taking the phrase "using all our resources" to include secret diplomacy and secret wars.
Interesting analysis. How could Russia and China help neutralize Al-Qaeda?
Interesting analysis. How could Russia and China help neutralize Al-Qaeda?
China and Russia both have agents, and interests, in Pakistan.
My point is that they have a bigger incentive to cooperate in this area than even we do. Their people are being killed, right now. Their national integrity is being threatened, right now. In the Russian case, there are proven links between the Chechens and Al Qaeda. I can't speak to the Uighur situation, but my guess is China assumes such links exist. And we can use that.
We're fighting a rigid medievalism, a know-nothing mentality, all around the world. That seems to be the prime struggle of the 21st century.
Thanks for writing.
Dana
China and Russia both have agents, and interests, in Pakistan.
My point is that they have a bigger incentive to cooperate in this area than even we do. Their people are being killed, right now. Their national integrity is being threatened, right now. In the Russian case, there are proven links between the Chechens and Al Qaeda. I can't speak to the Uighur situation, but my guess is China assumes such links exist. And we can use that.
We're fighting a rigid medievalism, a know-nothing mentality, all around the world. That seems to be the prime struggle of the 21st century.
Thanks for writing.
Dana
Allow me a crazy moment. Since most of Islam, and specifically the Quran, considers anyone who is not a Muslim an infidel, why not ban Islam and any remnant of it in our society?
You can have it in your own lands, but not in America or Switzerland or Russia or China. Mind you, the Islam practiced in Indonesia is peaceful compared to much in the Middle East. But let’s get out of the endless war business and simply separate ourselves from this type of god-belief.
Otherwise, the end game is eventual nuclear war. Why spend a billion dollars a day warring in various Muslim countries when we could issue a warning and drop a few big ones? We could even let the world — that is, China and Russia — know in advance, giving them time to object and defend Islamic terrorism.
If nothing will satisfy Muslims until they’ve taken over the culture, turned every government into a theocracy, and killed every non-Muslim (infidel), then perhaps someone should fight fire with nukes.
Crazy moment over.
Allow me a crazy moment. Since most of Islam, and specifically the Quran, considers anyone who is not a Muslim an infidel, why not ban Islam and any remnant of it in our society?
You can have it in your own lands, but not in America or Switzerland or Russia or China. Mind you, the Islam practiced in Indonesia is peaceful compared to much in the Middle East. But let’s get out of the endless war business and simply separate ourselves from this type of god-belief.
Otherwise, the end game is eventual nuclear war. Why spend a billion dollars a day warring in various Muslim countries when we could issue a warning and drop a few big ones? We could even let the world — that is, China and Russia — know in advance, giving them time to object and defend Islamic terrorism.
If nothing will satisfy Muslims until they’ve taken over the culture, turned every government into a theocracy, and killed every non-Muslim (infidel), then perhaps someone should fight fire with nukes.
Crazy moment over.
It would not be ‘new’ or ‘exotic’ for Americans to have agents in Pakistan to get their things done. They’ve been doing it for a long time now. So I guess the secret sauce you’re talking about is not that secret to begin with.
And for Christ sake, please understand that the current American led war on terror does not have a luxury of their opponents wearing an identity batch. If you think arranging a surge will help and hope for a quick win that will leave a better self-managing Afghans behind, you need a morning walk and some green tea. You haven’t tried building up vocabulary of a foreign language in 24 hours, right? Or building up the biceps of a feeble youngster in 1 day?
And for Zaine, thanks for your piece. We know this anti-Muslim shit stuffed in your head in your crazy moment is just as bad as the shit stuffed in the terrorists operating worldwide in all shades of society and all shades of theologies.
American leaders must take history lessons from Britons and the quiz would be from the Chapter titled ‘Afghanistan & NWFP’.
It would not be ‘new’ or ‘exotic’ for Americans to have agents in Pakistan to get their things done. They’ve been doing it for a long time now. So I guess the secret sauce you’re talking about is not that secret to begin with.
And for Christ sake, please understand that the current American led war on terror does not have a luxury of their opponents wearing an identity batch. If you think arranging a surge will help and hope for a quick win that will leave a better self-managing Afghans behind, you need a morning walk and some green tea. You haven’t tried building up vocabulary of a foreign language in 24 hours, right? Or building up the biceps of a feeble youngster in 1 day?
And for Zaine, thanks for your piece. We know this anti-Muslim shit stuffed in your head in your crazy moment is just as bad as the shit stuffed in the terrorists operating worldwide in all shades of society and all shades of theologies.
American leaders must take history lessons from Britons and the quiz would be from the Chapter titled ‘Afghanistan & NWFP’.
Zaine: That is indeed a crazy moment. Because I don't think you quoted Holy Quran correctly,
Non-Muslims (like me) are infidels like non-Jews (also like me) are goyim. And the duty to "convert the infidel" among Muslims is no different from the call by Christians to convert the "heathen."
Sure, a lot of people have used all this as an excuse for violence. That has been going on for 1,000 years. But it's false, from a theological perspective.
And it leads to crazy talk.
Dana
Zaine: That is indeed a crazy moment. Because I don't think you quoted Holy Quran correctly,
Non-Muslims (like me) are infidels like non-Jews (also like me) are goyim. And the duty to "convert the infidel" among Muslims is no different from the call by Christians to convert the "heathen."
Sure, a lot of people have used all this as an excuse for violence. That has been going on for 1,000 years. But it's false, from a theological perspective.
And it leads to crazy talk.
Dana
Perhaps, Tee Emm, but right now god-belief is more dangerous to peaceful atheists like myself than ever in history. The content of the Quran is very different from how Islam is practiced around most of the planet. All the oppression of women you find among Islamic societies is not found in the Quran, those practices came later.
And let’s face it, if you posit YOUR religion as THE one and only, then it follows that everyone else is wrong and must see the light. If not, they must be opposed in any way possible, even to the death. We see this in horrific incidents each month. Remember the Pakistanis who crossed into India last year and slaughtered people at the train station? What was that for? What did that accomplish? Look at how angry many Muslims are in Britain, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Why? What motivated Nidal Hasan to kill his own comrades at Fort Hood? I could go on and on and on, the origin of all these violent acts found in Islam.
They don’t want to assimilate, but they do want to hate all things non-Muslim. For a free society, that’s trouble now and big trouble if left to fester. It essentially says that if you don’t believe as I believe, if you don’t do as I do, if you don’t follow what I follow, hate what I hate, then my god will only reward me for killing you. That’s how crazy and how far they’ve taken the Quran, most of which reads more like Psalms than Deuteronomy.
No society can tolerate such and remain free and open. In the meantime, I have a right to exist without the violent coercion of extremist god-believers. Otherwise, the most violent members of any society will always control it.
Perhaps, Tee Emm, but right now god-belief is more dangerous to peaceful atheists like myself than ever in history. The content of the Quran is very different from how Islam is practiced around most of the planet. All the oppression of women you find among Islamic societies is not found in the Quran, those practices came later.
And let’s face it, if you posit YOUR religion as THE one and only, then it follows that everyone else is wrong and must see the light. If not, they must be opposed in any way possible, even to the death. We see this in horrific incidents each month. Remember the Pakistanis who crossed into India last year and slaughtered people at the train station? What was that for? What did that accomplish? Look at how angry many Muslims are in Britain, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Why? What motivated Nidal Hasan to kill his own comrades at Fort Hood? I could go on and on and on, the origin of all these violent acts found in Islam.
They don’t want to assimilate, but they do want to hate all things non-Muslim. For a free society, that’s trouble now and big trouble if left to fester. It essentially says that if you don’t believe as I believe, if you don’t do as I do, if you don’t follow what I follow, hate what I hate, then my god will only reward me for killing you. That’s how crazy and how far they’ve taken the Quran, most of which reads more like Psalms than Deuteronomy.
No society can tolerate such and remain free and open. In the meantime, I have a right to exist without the violent coercion of extremist god-believers. Otherwise, the most violent members of any society will always control it.
Zaine:
What's the difference between the practices you abhor in Islam and those of, say, the Mormons, or the Southern Baptists, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the whole evangelical movement, or the Roman Catholic Church, or what Rachel Maddow is reporting about links between American evangelicals and a law in Uganda aimed at executing homosexuals?
I hear you. A matter of degree. But there are only a handful of radical Islamists in the whole West, and their movements are aimed far more at our actions within the Muslim world than the fact most westerners are Christian. They say they're engaging in defense, not offense.
Christians regularly engage in offense. Even Mother Teresa was engaged in offense, going into the lands of the "heathen" and seeking to convert them through good works. You know who else does that? The Taliban. (If you were an Afghani villager you would have that at the tip of the tongue.)
What I'm asking for is dialogue. From all sides. Condemning the whole of Islam over the actions of a few, or the whole of Christendom over the actions of a few, is wrong. We should ask why people are doing these things and what can be done to mitigate the suffering they identify or, barring that, to stop those particular people and/or groups.
I personally feel this is a conflict between medievalism — a movement active among all the major religions — and modernism. In this struggle, you and Tee Emm are on the same side. We all are.
Dana
Zaine:
What's the difference between the practices you abhor in Islam and those of, say, the Mormons, or the Southern Baptists, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the whole evangelical movement, or the Roman Catholic Church, or what Rachel Maddow is reporting about links between American evangelicals and a law in Uganda aimed at executing homosexuals?
I hear you. A matter of degree. But there are only a handful of radical Islamists in the whole West, and their movements are aimed far more at our actions within the Muslim world than the fact most westerners are Christian. They say they're engaging in defense, not offense.
Christians regularly engage in offense. Even Mother Teresa was engaged in offense, going into the lands of the "heathen" and seeking to convert them through good works. You know who else does that? The Taliban. (If you were an Afghani villager you would have that at the tip of the tongue.)
What I'm asking for is dialogue. From all sides. Condemning the whole of Islam over the actions of a few, or the whole of Christendom over the actions of a few, is wrong. We should ask why people are doing these things and what can be done to mitigate the suffering they identify or, barring that, to stop those particular people and/or groups.
I personally feel this is a conflict between medievalism — a movement active among all the major religions — and modernism. In this struggle, you and Tee Emm are on the same side. We all are.
Dana