Memoirs of the Taliban 02/23/2010
Abdul Salam Zaeef, a former minister in Afghanistan's Taliban government and the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, published his memoirs this winter. He was released from Guantanamo Bay in 2005.
His writings contain lots of juicy tidbits about the relationship between Pakistan's notorious ISI intelligence services and the Taliban. Money quote from Steve Coll's commentary:
While in office, Zaeef found that he “couldn’t entirely avoid” the influence of Pakistan’s powerful intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence. Its officers volunteered money and political support. Late in 2001, as the United States prepared to attack Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, the I.S.I.’s then commanding general, Mahmud Ahmad, visited Zaeef’s home in Islamabad, wept in solidarity, and promised, “We want to assure you that you will not be alone in this jihad against America. We will be with you.” And yet Zaeef never trusted his I.S.I. patrons. He sought to protect the Taliban’s independence: “I tried to be not so sweet that I would be eaten whole, and not so bitter that I would be spat out.”
Read the Telegraph's review here.
His writings contain lots of juicy tidbits about the relationship between Pakistan's notorious ISI intelligence services and the Taliban. Money quote from Steve Coll's commentary:
While in office, Zaeef found that he “couldn’t entirely avoid” the influence of Pakistan’s powerful intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence. Its officers volunteered money and political support. Late in 2001, as the United States prepared to attack Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, the I.S.I.’s then commanding general, Mahmud Ahmad, visited Zaeef’s home in Islamabad, wept in solidarity, and promised, “We want to assure you that you will not be alone in this jihad against America. We will be with you.” And yet Zaeef never trusted his I.S.I. patrons. He sought to protect the Taliban’s independence: “I tried to be not so sweet that I would be eaten whole, and not so bitter that I would be spat out.”
Read the Telegraph's review here.
Add Comment
Time for a wonky read on nuclear fingerprinting.
"Fingerprinting of Nuclear Material for Nuclear Forensics" by Alice Redermeier
From the abstract: Unknown nuclear material may originate from several sources. Nuclear forensics allows by using fingerprinting and comparison with reference data to determine the origin, the intended use, the last legal owner and the smuggling route. These information are essential in the cause of theft or diversion as measures of safeguards can be implemented to prevent future thefts. Certain measurable parameters can point to a specific material and provide therefore a ‘fingerprint’ of the unknown material. Comparing the measured parameters with reference material give clues to the origin and the last legal owner. Characteristic parameters and possible information they contain are presented.
"Fingerprinting of Nuclear Material for Nuclear Forensics" by Alice Redermeier
From the abstract: Unknown nuclear material may originate from several sources. Nuclear forensics allows by using fingerprinting and comparison with reference data to determine the origin, the intended use, the last legal owner and the smuggling route. These information are essential in the cause of theft or diversion as measures of safeguards can be implemented to prevent future thefts. Certain measurable parameters can point to a specific material and provide therefore a ‘fingerprint’ of the unknown material. Comparing the measured parameters with reference material give clues to the origin and the last legal owner. Characteristic parameters and possible information they contain are presented.
A serious question: When did the New York Times editorial board decide it doesn't give a @#%$ about quality?
Andrew Rosenthal et al. began February with Adam B. Lowther's bizarre argument that Iran getting the bomb wouldn't be such a bad thing. For those of you that missed it, Lowther lists five potential benefits that include Israel and Palestine getting serious about a peace deal, helping the US break OPEC, and forcing Arab states to pay for the "War on Terror." (Stephen Walt has the unnecessary full take-down here.) It's almost as if the editorial board felt bad for making the Iran hawks look stupid by publishing Alan Kuperman's ludicrous Iran invasion plan back in December and decided to right the wrong by publishing something equally stupid from the other side.
This week the bizarro NYT Op-Ed page got even worse with the publication of Lara M. Dadkhah's views on why we need more civilian casualties in Afghanistan. The piece is an annoying combination of callous bravado and complete naivete:
"So in a modern refashioning of the obvious — that war is harmful to civilian populations — the United States military has begun basing doctrine on the premise that dead civilians are harmful to the conduct of war. The trouble is, no past war has ever supplied compelling proof of that claim."
You know those tough dudes at college who love 24, sleep with a copy of The Prince under their pillow and won't stop taking your ear off about how although Hitler was a sicko but he certainly knew how to motivate people? Something tells Dadkhah was/is one of those people.
To the point that civilian casualties historical haven't been an issue, um... remember the last time a superpower tried to invade Afghanistan? Thankfully Owen Matthews and Anna Nemtsova over at Newsweek do:
More after the jump --->
Andrew Rosenthal et al. began February with Adam B. Lowther's bizarre argument that Iran getting the bomb wouldn't be such a bad thing. For those of you that missed it, Lowther lists five potential benefits that include Israel and Palestine getting serious about a peace deal, helping the US break OPEC, and forcing Arab states to pay for the "War on Terror." (Stephen Walt has the unnecessary full take-down here.) It's almost as if the editorial board felt bad for making the Iran hawks look stupid by publishing Alan Kuperman's ludicrous Iran invasion plan back in December and decided to right the wrong by publishing something equally stupid from the other side.
This week the bizarro NYT Op-Ed page got even worse with the publication of Lara M. Dadkhah's views on why we need more civilian casualties in Afghanistan. The piece is an annoying combination of callous bravado and complete naivete:
"So in a modern refashioning of the obvious — that war is harmful to civilian populations — the United States military has begun basing doctrine on the premise that dead civilians are harmful to the conduct of war. The trouble is, no past war has ever supplied compelling proof of that claim."
You know those tough dudes at college who love 24, sleep with a copy of The Prince under their pillow and won't stop taking your ear off about how although Hitler was a sicko but he certainly knew how to motivate people? Something tells Dadkhah was/is one of those people.
To the point that civilian casualties historical haven't been an issue, um... remember the last time a superpower tried to invade Afghanistan? Thankfully Owen Matthews and Anna Nemtsova over at Newsweek do:
More after the jump --->
Dissent of the Day 02/17/2010
From Daniel Larison:
The failure of the Green movement to destabilize the Iranian regime on Feb. 11 has removed the last excuse for delaying meaningful, sustained negotiations between Washington and Tehran. Unfortunately, the Obama administration appears trapped by the failures of the past and incapable of advancing U.S. interests.
Until the Iranian regime showed its ability to divide and control its opposition, there remained a remote hope that internal resistance might force changes in the government, easing the Obama administration’s task of coping with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Now that this illusion has been shattered, the administration must recognize the futility of its current course. Should he continue to pursue the "pressure track," attempting to orchestrate international pressure against Iran, President Obama will only damage important relationships with Russia and China while achieving none of his objectives.
The issue here is optics. Many realists in the Obama Administration realize that if Tehran is determined to get the bomb, there is no way to stop it. Larison wants more negotiations. But to look like a fool and continue with phony negotiations is bad politics. So is sitting on your hands and doing nothing. For Obama, sanctions offer a relatively benign method for splitting the difference between disastrous air strikes and losing public support. If Iran gets the bomb under Obama’s watch, he is going to have to explain himself, even though he has no viable way to stop it. Additionally, sanctions buy time against the possibility of an Israeli air strike, which could be catastrophic for the region.
The failure of the Green movement to destabilize the Iranian regime on Feb. 11 has removed the last excuse for delaying meaningful, sustained negotiations between Washington and Tehran. Unfortunately, the Obama administration appears trapped by the failures of the past and incapable of advancing U.S. interests.
Until the Iranian regime showed its ability to divide and control its opposition, there remained a remote hope that internal resistance might force changes in the government, easing the Obama administration’s task of coping with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Now that this illusion has been shattered, the administration must recognize the futility of its current course. Should he continue to pursue the "pressure track," attempting to orchestrate international pressure against Iran, President Obama will only damage important relationships with Russia and China while achieving none of his objectives.
The issue here is optics. Many realists in the Obama Administration realize that if Tehran is determined to get the bomb, there is no way to stop it. Larison wants more negotiations. But to look like a fool and continue with phony negotiations is bad politics. So is sitting on your hands and doing nothing. For Obama, sanctions offer a relatively benign method for splitting the difference between disastrous air strikes and losing public support. If Iran gets the bomb under Obama’s watch, he is going to have to explain himself, even though he has no viable way to stop it. Additionally, sanctions buy time against the possibility of an Israeli air strike, which could be catastrophic for the region.
Quotes of the Day 02/17/2010
“The regime in Beijing is more stable than any alternative government that can be formed in China. Let us assume that the students had carried the day in Tiananmen [Square] and they had formed a government . . . What kind of China would they have today? Something worse than the Soviet Union. China is a vast disparate country;there is no alternative to strong central power.”
– Lee Kuan Yew, First Prime Minister of Singapore
The Asian economies are moving from a capital and labor intensive industrial phase into an information and technology intensive one. Many experts have acknowledged that this new economic world requires guaranteed freedom of information and creativity. These things are possible only in a democratic society. Thus Asia has no practical alternative to democracy; it is a matter of survival in an age of intensifying competition. The world economy’s changes have already meant a greater and easier flow of information, which has helped Asia’s democratization process.”
- Kim Dae Jung, former President of South Korea
– Lee Kuan Yew, First Prime Minister of Singapore
The Asian economies are moving from a capital and labor intensive industrial phase into an information and technology intensive one. Many experts have acknowledged that this new economic world requires guaranteed freedom of information and creativity. These things are possible only in a democratic society. Thus Asia has no practical alternative to democracy; it is a matter of survival in an age of intensifying competition. The world economy’s changes have already meant a greater and easier flow of information, which has helped Asia’s democratization process.”
- Kim Dae Jung, former President of South Korea
Nuclear Fingerprinting 02/16/2010
Today Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 730, which establishes a nuclear forensics team at the Department of Homeland Security.
Different countries' nuclear material have different "fingerprints"--combinations of isotopes that make them uniquely identifiable. Thus, a nuclear explosion of a bomb from Russia would leave different markers than one from North Korea. This is immensely important, because if a country were to "hand-off" a nuclear bomb to a terrorist, then the US could trace it back to the state and use massive retaliation. The ability to fingerprint quickly could reestablish nuclear deterrence against such handoffs.
Different countries' nuclear material have different "fingerprints"--combinations of isotopes that make them uniquely identifiable. Thus, a nuclear explosion of a bomb from Russia would leave different markers than one from North Korea. This is immensely important, because if a country were to "hand-off" a nuclear bomb to a terrorist, then the US could trace it back to the state and use massive retaliation. The ability to fingerprint quickly could reestablish nuclear deterrence against such handoffs.
Taliban #2 Captured in Pakistan 02/16/2010
This is big news, and causes a pause to reconsider how half-assed the original invasion of Afghanistan was. I personally was surprised that Mullah Baradar was found in Karachi, not in the tribal regions. Karachi is Pakistan's biggest city and financial center. Juan Cole's analysis:
Obama's drone attacks on the Taliban leadership forced Mullah Baradar and some other commanders to relocate to the southern port city of Karachi, hundreds of miles from the action in the tribal areas of the northwest. He is said to attempted to restructure the military command of the Taliban in fall of 2009, but met a good deal of resistance. The episode is said to have resulted in poor morale in the Old Taliban.
My own suspicion is that Mullah Baradar was behind the violence against Shiites in Karachi this winter. Provoking Sunni-Shiite violence so as to destabilize Pakistan's financial and industrial hub would be a typical al-Qaeda tactic. The bombings succeeded in provoking major riots and property damage. But when you hurt stock prices and harm government revenues, you rather draw the attention to yourself of the country's elite and their security forces, since you have mightily inconvenienced them. As long as the Old Taliban were mainly bothering the government of Hamid Karzai over the border in Pakistan, the ISI might have been able to turn a blind eye to them. But if they were going to cause billions of dollars of damage to Karachi, which they did this winter, that is intolerable.
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Mullah Baradar's capture will destroy the Old Taliban. And even if that organization is weakened, there are at least three other major insurgent groups only loosely connected to them, which have the operational autonomy and resources to go on fighting.
Certainly, we shouldn't jump to any conclusions that this will precipitate the collapse of the Taliban. However, the same was said about killing Zarqawi and the durability of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. Combined with the surge and proposals for buying off middle and lower ranking insurgents, this does start resembling the Iraq case. If the recent events also signal a change in Pakistan's posture-- then, perhaps, this could be the beginning of the end.
Update: Members of the Taliban moved to Karachi to get out of the range of drone attacks. Karachi has 3 million Pashtuns, mostly living in ghettos where the Taliban can blend in.
Obama's drone attacks on the Taliban leadership forced Mullah Baradar and some other commanders to relocate to the southern port city of Karachi, hundreds of miles from the action in the tribal areas of the northwest. He is said to attempted to restructure the military command of the Taliban in fall of 2009, but met a good deal of resistance. The episode is said to have resulted in poor morale in the Old Taliban.
My own suspicion is that Mullah Baradar was behind the violence against Shiites in Karachi this winter. Provoking Sunni-Shiite violence so as to destabilize Pakistan's financial and industrial hub would be a typical al-Qaeda tactic. The bombings succeeded in provoking major riots and property damage. But when you hurt stock prices and harm government revenues, you rather draw the attention to yourself of the country's elite and their security forces, since you have mightily inconvenienced them. As long as the Old Taliban were mainly bothering the government of Hamid Karzai over the border in Pakistan, the ISI might have been able to turn a blind eye to them. But if they were going to cause billions of dollars of damage to Karachi, which they did this winter, that is intolerable.
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Mullah Baradar's capture will destroy the Old Taliban. And even if that organization is weakened, there are at least three other major insurgent groups only loosely connected to them, which have the operational autonomy and resources to go on fighting.
Certainly, we shouldn't jump to any conclusions that this will precipitate the collapse of the Taliban. However, the same was said about killing Zarqawi and the durability of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. Combined with the surge and proposals for buying off middle and lower ranking insurgents, this does start resembling the Iraq case. If the recent events also signal a change in Pakistan's posture-- then, perhaps, this could be the beginning of the end.
Update: Members of the Taliban moved to Karachi to get out of the range of drone attacks. Karachi has 3 million Pashtuns, mostly living in ghettos where the Taliban can blend in.
Turkish FM Ahmet Davutoglu Meets Iranian FM Manouchehr Mottaki
The Turkish FM is meeting his Iranian counterpart in a putative effort to rescue the nuclear swap deal, which would involve Iran sending its fuel abroad for enrichment.
The AKP government in Turkey has used Iran's increasing isolation as an opportunity to strengthen ties between the two states. Turkey was one of the first countries to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his "reelection." This is part of Turkey's new foreign policy outlook, which seeks to end differences with neighbors through talks. However, such a policy, while a refreshing change from Kemalist fearmongering, has its limits. In the end, you need to pursue interests. And it is difficult to see how a nuclear-armed Iran is in Turkey's interest.
Analysis from Semih Idiz of Millyet:
The point is that Iran insists on playing a dangerously defiant game. And this is happening regardless of the extremely friendly exhortations from Turkey, which today acts more like an advocate of that country against the West than a neutral nation trying to broker an understanding between the two sides.
It is this attitude of Turkey’s that has complicated the country’s own position. Put simply, by cozying up to the increasingly despotic Ahmadinejad regime – and many argue this is due to feelings of Islamic solidarity – the Turkish government has undermined its chances for mediation with regard to this topic.
...The only bargaining, if any is still possible, will have to center on the modalities of the “uranium swap” formula proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, whereby Tehran hands over its uranium to a third party and in return receives the amount of enriched uranium it needs for medical purposes.
The problem here, however, is that Iran is not prepared to do this, regardless of some ambiguous remarks coming from Tehran that it may partially accept this proposal.
The AKP government in Turkey has used Iran's increasing isolation as an opportunity to strengthen ties between the two states. Turkey was one of the first countries to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his "reelection." This is part of Turkey's new foreign policy outlook, which seeks to end differences with neighbors through talks. However, such a policy, while a refreshing change from Kemalist fearmongering, has its limits. In the end, you need to pursue interests. And it is difficult to see how a nuclear-armed Iran is in Turkey's interest.
Analysis from Semih Idiz of Millyet:
The point is that Iran insists on playing a dangerously defiant game. And this is happening regardless of the extremely friendly exhortations from Turkey, which today acts more like an advocate of that country against the West than a neutral nation trying to broker an understanding between the two sides.
It is this attitude of Turkey’s that has complicated the country’s own position. Put simply, by cozying up to the increasingly despotic Ahmadinejad regime – and many argue this is due to feelings of Islamic solidarity – the Turkish government has undermined its chances for mediation with regard to this topic.
...The only bargaining, if any is still possible, will have to center on the modalities of the “uranium swap” formula proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, whereby Tehran hands over its uranium to a third party and in return receives the amount of enriched uranium it needs for medical purposes.
The problem here, however, is that Iran is not prepared to do this, regardless of some ambiguous remarks coming from Tehran that it may partially accept this proposal.
The Turkish Military & Politics 02/15/2010
The Economist has an excellent piece on the Turkish military's slow exodus from politics. Liberals rightfully cheer this development, but should also keep this point in mind:
With no credible rivals in sight, the AK party may well win a third term in 2012. This could give freer rein to what critics call Mr Erdogan’s tilt towards authoritarianism. His attacks against opposition newspapers and his reluctance to change laws that keep smaller (ie, Kurdish) parties out of parliament have reinforced this image. “One might feel better about the military’s loss of power if Turkey had a balanced political system with the possibility of alternance of government,” says Eric Edelman, a former American ambassador to Turkey.
There are no credible opposition leaders in Turkey, much less a credible opposition party. The only forces with any potency in Turkey over the past 30 years have been neo-liberalism, Islamism, the military, and Kurdish nationalism. The Islamists have co-opted neo-liberalism while effectively helping the military and the Kurds to weaken each other. The only force left standing is the AKP.
With no credible rivals in sight, the AK party may well win a third term in 2012. This could give freer rein to what critics call Mr Erdogan’s tilt towards authoritarianism. His attacks against opposition newspapers and his reluctance to change laws that keep smaller (ie, Kurdish) parties out of parliament have reinforced this image. “One might feel better about the military’s loss of power if Turkey had a balanced political system with the possibility of alternance of government,” says Eric Edelman, a former American ambassador to Turkey.
There are no credible opposition leaders in Turkey, much less a credible opposition party. The only forces with any potency in Turkey over the past 30 years have been neo-liberalism, Islamism, the military, and Kurdish nationalism. The Islamists have co-opted neo-liberalism while effectively helping the military and the Kurds to weaken each other. The only force left standing is the AKP.
The War Against Valentine's Day 02/14/2010
In most of the Muslim world, Valentine's Day is as big of a holiday as in any Western country.
But in Saudi Arabia, there is a ban on Valentine's Day. Although enforcement is difficult, religious police raid stores selling Valentine-related gifts, creating a booming black market for red roses. Many Saudis shop for Valentine's day weeks in advance to avoid the raids.
According to the Wahabbi sect of Islam, the only true love is love of God, making the focus of Valentine's Day misplaced. It certainly doesn't help either that Valentine's Day is named after a Christian saint. Wahabbi authorities also frown upon other secular holidays such as Mothers' Day and birthdays, although people are rarely ever punished for celebrating them.
But in Saudi Arabia, there is a ban on Valentine's Day. Although enforcement is difficult, religious police raid stores selling Valentine-related gifts, creating a booming black market for red roses. Many Saudis shop for Valentine's day weeks in advance to avoid the raids.
According to the Wahabbi sect of Islam, the only true love is love of God, making the focus of Valentine's Day misplaced. It certainly doesn't help either that Valentine's Day is named after a Christian saint. Wahabbi authorities also frown upon other secular holidays such as Mothers' Day and birthdays, although people are rarely ever punished for celebrating them.
Loading
