The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Iraqis Defy Blasts in Strong Turnout for Pivotal Vote,” describes the events during yesterday’s national elections in Iraq. Despite up to 100 blasts in the Baghdad region alone, the Iraqi people went to the polls in droves yesterday to cast votes.
The election results were dominated by supporters of Prime Minister Maliki and Ayad Allawi, a former leader of Iraq. But the process was open, and nearly all sectors of Iraqi society participated, including Sunnis and followers of Moktada Al-Sadr. This, in itself, was amazing.
The successful conclusion of the election, although coalitions remain to be formed, gave President Obama the space he needs to continue the pullout of U.S. forces. And though this election was marred by a lot of violence, order was kept by national Iraqi forces, not U.S. troops.
Even loudspeakers at mosques encouraged Iraqis to vote, a complete turnaround from just a few short years ago when the country seemed to be on the brink of civil war.
Perhaps, Al Sadr described the situation the best when he said, “Participation in the election is a sort of political resistance.” This statement emphasizes the ability to change leaders by the ballot box instead of the gun and shows how far the Iraqis have come.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Secret Joint Raid Captures Taliban’s Top Commander.” It describes the arrest of Mullah Baradar, the Taliban’s military chief, second only to its spiritual leader, Mullah Omar.
The arrest is significant because of the role played by Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency, ISI. Previously, there was some degree of sheltering and mutual assistance between ISI and the Taliban, because the Pakistanis wanted an internal ally inside of Afghanistan when the Americans eventually left.
However, recently there has been a “sea change” in cooperation between ISI and the CIA as the Pakistani government has come to view the Taliban as a threat to its own stability.
Mullah Baradar has been undergoing some extreme questioning, and, reading between the lines, it seems like the Pakistani questioners have exceeded some of the new constraints imposed by President Obama. The arrest certainly comes at an opportune time in the middle of the U.S. offensive against Marja.
There is also the continuing question of whether some more moderate elements of the Taliban could eventually negotiate with the United States in a way similar to the Sunnis in Iraq during the Great Awakening. As a whole, the Taliban refuse to accept the Afghan constitution or renounce Al Qaeda, but with the lack of a strong military leader at the top, maybe this will change.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Errant Rocket Kills Civilians in Afghanistan.” It describes the battle for Marja and a fatal error by NATO / U.S. forces in striking a civilian complex with a rocket, killing 10 civilians including five children.
The rocket came from Himars, an acronym for High Mobility Artillery Rocket System. It is supposedly guided by GPS and can strike within a yard or two of the programmed location.
But this rocket missed, and the casualties are exactly the kind of event General McChrystal has emphasized that he wishes to avoid. He apologized to the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, but the damage has already been done in terms of winning hearts and minds to the U.S. cause.
The problem is that these kind of events are inevitable during the course of a heated battle. You can’t just lay down your arms or handicap yourself when faced with a determined foe.
The rest of the article provides a gripping account of the entry of Marines into Marja and the timeline of the Taliban resistance, their ability to outflank the NATO forces and employment of a sniper as well.
The U.S. has also been talking to local leaders in an effort to get a government installed as quickly as possible when the shooting stops. This extra step to the clear, hold, build paradigm may prove to be the crucial factor in restoring order and routing the Taliban.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Allies Attacking Big Taliban Haven in Afghan South.” The two-column banner headline describes the commencement of a military action designed to drive the Taliban out of Marja, a Taliban stronghold. While most of the Taliban leadership appears to have left in anticipation of the attack, a few hundred fighters remain behind, and the roads have been plentifully mined with bombs and IEDs.
The article describes the operation as different from previous actions because the NATO troops intend to minimize civilian casualties and install a provincial government as soon as the shooting stops. This strategy of conquer, hold and build was the purported reason for Obama’s decision to send an additional 30,000 troops.
The operation is the beginning of a campaign to destroy Taliban sanctuaries throughout the south of the Afghanistan, and interestingly, the article notes that the majority of the troops are Afghan. This was surprising to me in that I didn’t think there were that many locals troops who had been properly trained.
The troops entered the town in the middle of the night, and it remains to be seen how many casualties will be sustained in the next few days. Some critics have noted that the Taliban has no need to fight — they can just melt away and bide their time until the proposed U.S. pullout date.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Pakistan is Said to Pursue Role in Afghan Talks.” It describes an offer by Pakistan to mediate with Taliban tribes whose influence extends over both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some of these tribes, especially the Haqqani network, are the most lethal in the fight against the United States in southern Afghanistan.
The head of Pakistan’s army, General Kayani, has made the offer to several leading U.S. generals, in an effort to maintain the peace when the United States leaves the region. The Haqqani tribes has links with many in the Pakistan army and intelligence services. However, the United States is most concerned with the link between the Haqqani and Al Qaeda. If this link can be severed, they might be persuaded to tacitly approve the talks.
Pakistan’s main concern remains India, and they see Afghanistan as a second front that they don’t want to open. Whether this can work in the United States favor remains to be seen.
The political considerations in all this jockeying for position are profound and complex. In my opinion, the shifting alliances could eventually work against the United States. And, in fact, this article concludes with the observation, “The United States is pretty worried about seeing a deal emerge that suits everyone other than us.”
8H358GEY9563
The lead article in today’s New York Times is a news analysis piece titled, “For Kremlin, Ukraine Vote Cuts Two Ways.” It describes the influence and reaction to the Ukraine presidential election in Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
The election was favorable to Russia because its candidate, Viktor Yanukovich, won, but it also made Russia uncomfortable because of the fairness and openness of the process, unlike Russian elections since Vladimir Putin consolidated his power.
European monitors all praised the process while they typically decry elections in Russia. In my opinion, it shows the power of democratic systems to affect change, to allow a change in ruling elites without resorting to violence.
So, in essence, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine succeeded, even though, ironically, their rulers had to be voted out to cement that success.
The election also offers hope to Ukraine’s neighbors in Eastern Europe and the possibility of escaping the orbit of the former Soviet Union to establish their own polity, culture and governance.
The article notes there have been recent signs of rebellion in Russia against Vladimir Putin’s “consolidated” system, and the Ukranian election may even foster more open elections there, even if the Ukranian model isn’t followed exactly. It’s hard to give the people a taste of democracy and then take it away, and Russia now finds itself in that situation.
The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Deaths of 3 G.I.s in Pakistan Show Low-Key U.S. Role.” The article describes the background of military assistance to the Pakistanis, a sensitive topic since it intrudes upon Pakistan’s national sovereignty and since many in the population view the United States with suspicion.
Apparently, the men killed were part of a Special Operations unit, and they were travelling in a dangerous area to help mark the opening of a new school for girls, built with U.S. funds. The Taliban typically destroy any attempts to educate the female population as inconsistent with the Koran.
The article hypothesizes one reason the soldiers were killed — as retaliation for the increasing number of drone attacks against Pakistani targets. There was also some question of betrayal among the government forces since the soldiers were well camouflaged and protected by a cordon of vehicles.
Despite this setback, the attack tends to show the effectiveness of President Obama’s increased attention to the region, the area where many believe Osama bin Laden is holding out. Otherwise, there would have been no perceived need to retaliate.
However, the sensitivities of the Pakistani government are another matter, and we can only hope to continue to downplay our role behind the scenes.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Taliban Assault Rattles Capital of Afghanistan.” It describes an attack by Taliban commandos right next to the Presidential palace, Ministry of Justice and Central Bank. The battle raged for up to five hours, and there was a secondary blast a few blocks away.
The ability of the Taliban to attack at will in such a secure urban area was designed to strike fear among the residents of Kabul. Generally, the Taliban is perceived as strong in rural areas, the area where the majority of American troops are located. That’s why this situation is so troubling.
The Americans are currently undertaking a program to attract Taliban militia to their side by portraying the Taliban as inevitable losers in the struggle. Such a brazen attack by the Taliban brings them favorable publicity and makes any U.S. recruitment efforts less likely to succeed.
In my opinion, the entire Afghanistan situation could easily result in a quagmire, if it hasn’t already. We are not familiar with the terrain; the local customs are foreign to us; and our increased military footprint is sure to increase resentment.
As Vice President Biden noted, the Taliban do not represent a threat to our homeland, and we would be better off just targeting Al Qaeda, located primarily in Pakistan.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Iran is Shielding Nuclear Efforts in Tunnel Mazes.” It describes the scope of Iran’s efforts to hide its nuclear facilities in tunnels dispersed across the nation.
The tunnels provide an effective defense against the military option by the United States and especially Israel, described in the article as having more limited intelligence necessary to locate and destroy the tunnels. The article notes three characteristics making it difficult to counter Iran’s nuclear development program: 1) well hidden, 2) widely dispersed, and 3) deeply buried.
Further bad news involves President Ahmadinejad’s background: he began his career as a transportation engineer and founded the Iranian Tunneling Association in 1998. Previously, during the 1980s war with Iraq, Iran began its tunneling program for shelter from waves of missiles.
As a counterpoint, the United States is currently developing a tunnel weapon known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. Due to be deployed next summer, it is ten times more powerful than its predecessor, and 20 feet long with thousands of pounds of explosives. It will be carried by the Stealth bomber and is specially designed for deep tunnels.
The problem with all these efforts, however, is that Iran has created a maze of decoy tunnels as well. And we only need to miss one area, one receptacle with a newly developed bomb for the whole effort to fail. This speaks volumes in favor of the Obama administration’s policy of engagement albeit with the big stick of sanctions included.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Suicide Bomber in Afghanistan a Double Agent.” It provides a new revelation about the bombing last week killing seven C.I.A. agents — the bomber was a double agent provided by the Jordanian government.
The article describes how the Jordanian spy service, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided the individual to infiltrate Al Jaeda and how the man was purportedly going to provide information about the location of Al Qaeda’s number two leader, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahri. As a result, the double agent was never screened for explosives, and Al Qaeda gained a major tactical victory.
Well, I don’t have to be a C.I.A. agent to know that one of the first major rules of espionage is that you can’t trust anyone. But to not even take the most elementary precautions speaks very poorly of our intelligence service. It’s one thing to have airline security people make a glaring error, quite another one for our own operatives professionally trained in the field.
The C.I.A. bombing also creates a major internal division in our ranks. The government of Jordan and the C.I.A. have cooperated closely in the past, even though this is distinctly unpopular with the Jordanian people, especially in light of the Palestinian situation. One can only hope that cooperation will resume, even if in a more guarded manner.
