Wednesday Musings

I’m home sick today with a brutal cough/cold combination sapping my energy. Even so, I must get my blogging fix and muse about current events:

• Tax day has me thinking of my grandfather. As I’ve shared previously on this blog, my grandfather came to the United States just prior to Nazi Germany’s occupation of Poland along with his six brothers. Years ago my Mom told me the story of when she teased my grandfather as he did the annoying grownup chore of completing his tax returns. My grandfather rebuked her and said, “I’m proud to pay my taxes in this country.” He genuinely believed it was his patriotic duty to contribute and he was not wealthy. I wonder what he would think of these “tea bagging” conservatives, especially the wealthy ones, who are so contemptuous of their civic obligations even as they claim superior patriotism to everyone else.

• I too am opposed to the continued bailouts of fraudulent financial institutions. Indeed, outrage over the bailouts is something both liberals and conservatives share these days. Nonetheless, it is the conservatives who are promoting tax rebellions that engineered the very “starve the beast” deregulating crusade that facilitated our current economic calamity. With the private sector on life support after Wall Street’s transgressions it makes little sense to starve the only entity capable of stimulating the economy on a wide scale: our federal government.

• Understandably, we Americans are fixated on our new young president. Yet, there is something rather egocentric about our obsession and I am as guilty of that as anyone. It is especially easy for Americans to forget that not everything in this world is about our politics, policies, priorities or perceptions. For example, Thailand has been rocked by anti-government protests in recent days. Today, Thailand’s government announced it has revoked the passport of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra after accusing him of encouraging the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship. Shinawatra was recently convicted of corruption and has been abroad since his 2006 deposition. Shinawatra has recently asked the United Front to practice nonviolence. Hopefully, a just resolution can be achieved in that troubled country with no more loss of life.

• Regrettably, the daring rescue of Captain Richard Phillips by Navy Seals has not served as a deterrent as Somali pirates attacked another American cargo ship today. This particular ship was delivering needed food aid and far more than American ships are being targeted in this vast territory of maritime commerce. The Obama administration’s posture with respect to piracy has been firm yet measured. That will frustrate some but it's far better than exploiting the situation to irrationally escalate the “war on terror.”

• The Obama administration is putting considerable diplomatic and military muscle to reinforce Pakistan against militant Islam. The conventional wisdom within America’s foreign policy establishment is that Pakistan is too important to fail. Yet it's the Pakistani government that appeased the Taliban and al Quaeda by allowing Sharia law to be imposed in the Swat Valley. American and NATO can only do so much to shape events there. If Pakistan’s government does fall to Islamic radicals what then? Would India occupy Pakistan with Washington’s blessing? How would China or India respond to that development?
  

• Much of the diplomatic chatter with respect to an American-Iranian rapprochement is really about addressing common strategic interests along the Afghanistan-Pakistani corridor. The Bush administration failed to exploit Iranian misgivings about the Taliban and al Quaeda. President Obama is hoping to make up for lost time but time is running out. Ultimately, success is not contingent upon a military surge but the current diplomatic activity taking place. When factoring in the nuclear arsenals of Pakistan and India as well as the Chinese, Iranian and Russian interests at work, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict seems almost trivial.

Saturday Morning Ponderings

This entire week I have endured the mother of all colds. Yet even in my Sudafed haze, I must comment on this week’s important developments:

• This week Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner finally rolled out his public/private partnership plan with respect to “toxic assets.” His so-called plan has me thinking about the dangers of treating symptoms instead of the cause. A fever is the body’s way of sending us a message that we need to kill off an infection. Similarly, these “toxic assets” are sending the international community an unmistakable message; hyper-sized financial institutions are a parasitic infection eroding quality of life for wage earners across the globe.

• Removing toxic assets is not treating the cause. And while more regulation is entirely justified and something we liberals have been insisting upon, that too will not treat the cause. Instead, citizens need to mobilize on behalf of bold anti-trust legislation that breaks up financial institutions such as CitiCorp and empower independent community banks. Do not be seduced by the gyrations of the stock market that some liberal bloggers chirped about this week. Unless the cause itself is treated our economic destiny will remain perilous. I fully support President Obama's ambitious budget and have nothing but contempt for the insipid Republican opposition as well as corporatist enablers such Indiana Senator Evan Bayh who stand in the way. Yet even the good intentions and overdue initiatives proposed in Obama's budget will not benefit our country as it should unless we boldly reshape our entire financial system.
  

• President Barack Obama took complete ownership of the war in Afghanistan yesterday with his announcement of 17,000 more combat troops as well as an additional 4,000 non-combat advisers. One difference between Obama and his predecessor is the linkage between the fight against al Quaeda in neighboring Pakistan as well as their Taliban allies in Afghanistan. Another difference is how the Obama administration intends to combine military power with a surge in regional diplomacy and “experts” to help fight corruption and facilitate a civil society. Supposedly, the focus is entirely defeating al Quaeda and not nation building, but how the hell can we fight corruption in an ancient society we know precious little about?

• Meanwhile, the administration promises to both lean on and support the Pakistani government in their struggle against terrorists. Frankly, aid to the Pakistani government at this point appears every bit as wasteful as giving billions to A.I.G. The civilian government uses terrorism as an excuse to oppress its population as elements of Pakistan’s intelligence service and military aid the Taliban in Afghanistan. How do we know that any aid we provide Pakistan isn’t being utilized to plan another attack against us or help the wrong people obtain access to their nuclear arsenal?
  

• All this is further compounded by an ultra-nationalist government in India that would make American neo-cons blush with their belligerence. The sub-continent is the world’s most dangerous powder keg and America’s presence has intensified regional violence. Even so, I sympathize with President Obama’s conundrum. Twenty years ago, our careless withdrawal after the cold war’s end facilitated the blowback that resulted in 9/11 and gave al Quaeda its safe haven. Our careless withdrawal of course followed our ill conceived intervention on behalf of Aghanistan's Mullah's in the first place when we armed Bin Laden in his struggle against the Soviet Union. If we screw it up this time the consequences will be far more catastrophic.
  

• I’ve long believed that the best strategic approach is cooperative containment with the international community as opposed to grandiose delusions about “dismantling” and “disabling” al Quaeda. This is an organic movement. You can take out one important leader after the other including Bin Laden himself and it will simply regenerate. We need instead to address the causes of terrorism and work diligently at draining the swamp that fosters it. Anything less is a waste of blood and treasure. Not to mention all the innocent people being killed in Afghanistan by our presence. Also, we should be on the side of democracy in Pakistan instead of nurturing more resentment among Pakistan's decent civillian majority.
  

• Longtime readers of this blog know how vigorously opposed I am to our prison industrial complex. I have therefore been keeping an eye on Virginia Senator James Webb who since his election in 2006, has spoken coherently about the need to reform our prison system. With a sympathetic President finally in the White House, Senator Webb has opted to take the initiative and joined Republican Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter in that effort. Both senators proposed legislation to create a blue-ribbon panel that would conduct an 18-month review and suggest recommendations of reform.
  

• Specifically, Webb hopes to reform a system that incarcerates 2.4 million people and represents 25 percent of the world’s prison population even as America comprises only 5 percent of the entire planet. Mostly we have incarcerated people for petty drug offenses who need treatment instead of prison. This is an act of real political courage because any suggestion of reform usually results in accusations of being soft on crime.

• Coincidentally, while Senators Webb and Specter plot prison reform in America, New York State’s dysfunctional leadership is finally addressing the arcane “Rockefeller Drug Laws” that have empowered my home state’s prison industrial complex for three decades. My favorite legislator, New York State Senator Liz Krueger, announced in a press release this week that,
  

“I am very proud to be a part of history today and finally see the Rockefeller Drug Laws reformed. The reforms announced today will restore judicial sentencing discretion and substantially expand alternatives to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders.

It has been a long hard fight to reform these archaic drug laws and today is the culmination of decades of hard work and advocacy from countless people, all of whom deserve praise for helping to achieve these needed reforms."

• Reforming our prisons and drug laws will do more to curb violence in Mexico than any increase in numbers of our border patrol. Legalization and treatment will address the causes of drug abuse far more effectively than mindlessly incarcerating people and creating blowback in neighboring Mexico.

The one theme that emerges from the above bullet points is America's need to think about the cause instead of always reacting to the symptoms of what ails us.

Benazir Bhutto and Sergei Kirov

My first thought after learning about Benazir Bhutto’s assassination today was Sergei Kirov. On December 1, 1934, the Leningrad Communist Party boss, Sergei Kirov was murdered. Kirov, was a prominent Bolshevik and popular within the party. Josef Stalin, perhaps the most evil and paranoid leader in history, perceived Kirov as a threat to his rule.

Stalin had valid reasons for fearing Kirov who benefited from much support during the 1934 Communist Party Congress when he was elevated to a position on the Central Committee. It’s possible that Stalin asked Kirov to work for him in Moscow in order to undermine his emerging political clout. Kirov turned Stalin down, perhaps to retain his independent power base in Lenigrad and on the Central Committee. Another factor that made Kirov a threat was nationality. Stalin was a Georgian while the ruggedly handsome Kirov an ethnic Russian. So Stalin used the NKVD to have Kirov murdered. He then ingeniously exploited Kirov’s murder as a pre-text for the Great Purges to defend the Soviet state against “saboteurs” and “Trotskyites.”

I don’t know who was behind former Pakistani Prime Minister Bhutto’s murder. Perhaps it truly was an act of terrorism by al Quaeda. It nevertheless is difficult not to suspect that Pakistan’s intelligence services opposed to any democratic reforms she might have implemented, wanted Bhutto out of the way and allowed assassins to get too close. For damn sure it provides Pakistan's President Musharaff, a pre-text for subverting the democracy Bhutto hoped to build. Her murder is also expedient for the Bush Administration and provides the neocons a pre-text for another cycle of fear mongering.

Hopefully, Bhutto’s martyrdom will have more success thwarting both the agents of reaction within the Pakistani government as well Islamic terrorists than she did in life. As a Muslim woman committed to democracy, Bhutto represented a beacon of light in a world of secular autocrats and religious radicals. Alas, her death represents a victory for the forces of darkness in a world spiraling out of control.

Fear Mongering 4.0

I originally intended to post this on Sunday, July 15th but my DSL service through Verizon has been erratic lately. Thankfully, this evening it’s working in my corner of Brooklyn uninterrupted.

Anyway, I thought Frank Rich had the most incisive comment among the punditocracy in the New York Times on Sunday when he wrote:

“So what if the al Quaeda that’s operating with impunity out of Pakistan, North Africa and other non-Iraq havens actually is the most pressing threat to America? This president is never one to let facts get in the way of a political agenda. That agenda is to avoid taking responsibility for losing a war, no matter how many more Americans are tossed into its carnage. From here on in, you can be sure that whomever we’re fighting in Iraq on any given day will be no more than one degree of separation from bin Laden.”

Rich is right of course, as the Bush Administration has managed to simultaneously exaggerate and ignore threats to America’s national security from their first days in power. Now the Bush Administration is attempting to roll out Fear Mongering 4.0 by acknowledging their ineffectiveness at taking on al Quaeda in Pakistan that has only prospered from our folly in Iraq.

Fear Mongering 4.0 is an insipid program that rationalizes wide latitude for the executive branch in the “war on terror” because of al Quaeda’s resurgence. In other words, “we screwed up but trust us to protect you anyway.”

Extricating ourselves from Iraq and addressing genuine national security threats requires a sober recalibration of our geopolitical strategy. Sadly, the final eighteen months of the Bush Administration will likely produce more bumper sticker fear mongering as our blood, treasure and moral authority continues to erode in Iraq.

Congress must assert itself over the next year and half. Otherwise, the next president, whoever it is, will be consumed by dosing the kerosene fire Bush has dumped on the planet while radical Islam continues to metastasize.

Ultimately it comes down to two questions?

1. Does the GOP have the patriotism to consider the good of the country above saving face for their party?

2. Will Democrats have the spine to follow through on their convictions instead of simply looking to bleed the GOP with political showmanship?

This past week of late night debates in the Senate gives me little hope.

No More Honeymoon

Election night 2006 was a satisfying result after the calamity of one party reactionary rule. On a personal level, I juggled my day job and after hours phone banking to help in the effort. Many other activists did the same out of patriotism and desire to establish a bulwark against the corporate theocrats in Washington. It feels like another lifetime and as The Nation duly noted in their latest edition, “The Honeymoon Is Over”:

“As Congress left town for its Memorial Day recess, the euphoria cast by the 2006 election victories was gone. Disappointed by the Democrats' inability to force a withdrawal timeline into the war-funding bill, angered by a trade deal hatched in secret, dismayed at backsliding on cleaning up Capitol Hill, progressives were faced with the unpleasant reality of the new Congress, warts and all.

The slim Democratic majority in both Houses is not a progressive majority. Just as distressing as the cave-in on war funding was the continued power of the bipartisan money party. Beyond ending the war, Democrats were elected because of popular rejection of corporate trade policies and the stench of corruption in Washington. Tom DeLay is gone, but the corporate lobbies just reloaded with Democrats. When the House leadership announced a trade accord that the Chamber of Commerce celebrated as a model for giving Bush renewed fast-track authority, hopes for a new economic course were punctured. Then, House Democrats wouldn't support even a two-year hiatus that would slow the revolving door between Congress and the lobby world. (‘That's our retirement plan,’ complained anonymous legislators.)”

I largely agree with that assessment about the Democratic majority’s corporatist leanings and sympathy for the K-Street industry. As for the war, even before Democrats assumed control, I advocated on this blog for either invoking the War Powers Act or cutting off funding. Timid and feckless, the Democrats were more concerned with implementing a political strategy of bleed and win. While the ongoing war continued to bleed Bush and the GOP, the Democrats were content to pass bills that scored political points and accomplished very little. The so-called benchmarks the Bush Administration agreed to is window dressing.

Ultimately, the plug will be pulled on this war by the GOP in September. Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said his party doesn’t want another election campaign about Iraq. All that remains is for some more soldiers to “die for a mistake” as the young John Kerry once put it, while the Iraqis continue to kill each other. Bush had hoped to hand off the war to his successor so defeat would not happen on his watch. How ironic that Bush's fellow Republicans who enabled him to pursue this immoral and diastrous war of choice, will have their fingerprints on our withdrawal.

But the overall problem of combating radical Islam with a foreign policy based on international cooperation and strategic logic remains. We're losing Afghanistan and getting little value from our support of Musharaff in Pakistan. Democrats deliver platitudes about sending more troops to Afghanistan after we leave Iraq. Yet they don't explain why an escalation in Afghanistan would be any more successful than the current surge in Iraq.

Meanwhile, an economic policy guided by corporatism at the expense of working people struggling to keep up with the cost of living is not being reversed. Why don’t they pass a bill overturning the hideous Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 passed by the Republican majority? Or make a push for reforming healthcare?

Granted, President Bush remains an obstacle to enacting a progressive program and more can be accomplished if the right person is elected to the White House next year. But that is no excuse for not maximizing their majority platform today to build public support and educate the citizenry. Congressional Democrats have wasted five months. Precious time that could’ve been used to aggressively advocate for replacing this insipid era of deranged privatization and cronyism, with bold initiatives designed to lift the working poor, nurture a vibrant middle class and yes provide healthcare for all.

However, the elections of 2006 were simply a first step in a long journey. Expecting a progressive reformation after one midterm election cycle was never realistic. Progressive activists, bloggers and citizens nationwide need to put their cynicism aside and remain engaged. The Nation put it best in their editorial’s closing paragraph:

“Democratic majorities have provided us with relatively progressive leaders in both houses of Congress and several aggressive committee chairs who are beginning to unearth the hidden horrors of this rogue Administration. But we still don't have the progressive strength in Congress or the leadership in the White House that can change this country's course. The serial disappointments of recent weeks are but a reminder that we've got work to do.”

We’ve only begun to fight for what is right.

Irony and Death

Liberal activists such as myself resent the Bush Administration’s cynical exploitation of fear. Bush and his enablers in the Republican Party have utilized fear to justify an immoral and unnecessary war in Iraq. A cabal of reckless warmongers and profiteers undermined our moral authority and geopolitical position. Even worse, while the Bush Administration was busy hyping the strategic importance of Iraq, Al Quaeda reconstituted itself. America is in great danger as a result.

Frank Rich is a liberal columnist not prone to exaggeration or fear mongering. In his most recent New York Times column, Rich noted how the CIA’s former head of the Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer told MSNB’s Keith Olberman, that Al Quaeda,

“are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States.”

I believe him. Tactical nuclear weapons are quite obtainable and these fanatics believe mass murder serves a higher purpose. Such warnings resemble the intelligence community's desperate attempt getting both Presidents Clinton and Bush to pay attention to the threat of an Al Quaeda attack prior to 9/11. Clinton was properly engaged but hamstrung politically following the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Bush wasn't even stirred by that infamously straightforward memo of August 2001.

Immediately after 9/11, I debated my fellow liberal friends about the merits of toppling the Taliban government in Afghanistan because of their support for Al Quaeda. I found myself in the unusual position of justifying a military response. The loss of innocent life utterly sickened me but there was no way we couldn’t respond. My problem was I didn’t trust an administration stocked with corporatist ideologues and imperialists.

As we’ve seen, the Bush Administration’s obsession with Iraq has facilitated
Al Quaeda's resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s bitterly ironic how Vice President Cheney’s meeting with Pakistan’s President Musharraf earlier today, featured a suicide bomber targeting him. The sort of terrorists the Bush Administration opted to neglect signaled they’re very much here by attempting to take our Vice President out.

The bomber killed 23 people instead. Much of the civilized world would not have grieved had Cheney been killed. Symbolically, today’s bombing was a propaganda bonanza for Al Quaeda.

It’s said that laughing is better than crying. How comically ironic that after letting Bin Laden escape in Tora Bora in December 2001, redirecting resources from Afghanistan to the Iraq theatre and giving Musharraf’s regime billions in aid, the Bush Administration finally decided to express displeasure at their ally in Islamabad. A useless exercise, because what can Musharraf effectively do without jeopardizing his own regime’s grip on power?

America’s enemies are ascending. Our veracity and moral legitimacy is not trusted by many of our western allies. Five and a half years after 9/11, we still haven’t developed a containment policy with the civilized world that provides a bulwark against radical Islam and empowers moderates. The “global war on terror” is perpetuating a treadmill of death with no end in sight.

January 20th, 2009 can’t get here soon enough. Hopefully, the next occupant of the White House won’t be a moron. Otherwise, the next attack may be far more catastrophic than two airplanes crashing into a building.

Pakistan: A Strategic Conundrum

Last week, I partly addressed America’s strategic incompetence with my post, “Afghanistan: The Forgotten War.” Another country we appear to have no strategy for is Pakistan. Presently, political leadership in Washington is consumed with a myopic debate over non-binding resolutions in Iraq while the failed “global war on terror” continues to burn. Pakistan illustrates America’s delicate position in this conflict, as the growing numbers of presidential candidates offer nothing but platitudes.

A historical overview of Pakistan is useful to provide context. Choudhary Rahmat Ali, a Cambridge student and Muslim nationalist invented the name “Pakistan.” He first published it on January 28, 1933 in the pamphlet Now or Never. Ali’s acronym was devised from the names of the "homelands" of Muslims in South Asia: P for Punjab, A for the Afghan areas of the region, K for Kashmir, S for Sindh and tan for Balochistan, thus forming “Pakstan.” An “I” was added to the English version resulting in Pakistan. Pakistan’s name also captured in the Persian language the notions of "pak", meaning "pure", and "stan", for "land" or "home", meaning, "Land of the Pure".

When the British granted independence to their dominions in India in mid-August 1947, Pakistan joined them as self-governing dominions of the British Commonwealth. Punjab and Bengal, two of the biggest provinces, remained divided between India and Pakistan. During this period, over two million people migrated across the new border and more than one hundred thousand died from ethnic conflict. Non-Muslims who lived in Pakistan were forced the leave the area, and facilitated communal violence among the populations of the newly founded nations. Their partition also resulted in tensions over Kashmir resulting in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947.

The First Kashmir War ended with Pakistan’s occupation of one-third of the state. They remained a Dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations until declaring independence in 1956. Their status as a republic didn’t last because of a coup d'etat by Ayub Khan (1958–69), who presided over a second war with India in 1965. His successor, Yahya Khan (1969–71) contended with the cyclone that caused 500,000 deaths in East Pakistan. Former Beatle George Harrison organized a benefit concert in Bangladesh at the time.

For the next thirty nears, conflict between the military and civilian rule persisted in Pakistan. When General Zia-ul-Haq became Pakistan’s third military president in 1977, he replaced his government’s secular policies with the Islamic Shariah legal code. As a result, Islamic influence in Pakistan’s society increased.

After General Zia died in a plane crash in 1988, Benazir Bhutto, was elected as the first female Prime Minister of Pakistan. She alternated power for the next decade with Nawaz Sharif, as the country's political and economic situation became more turbulent. Pakistan deployed 5,000 troops to the 1991 Gulf War as part of a US led coalition to defend of Saudi Arabia. Military tensions in the Kargil conflict with India were followed by a Pakistani military coup d'état in 1999 in which General Pervez Musharraf assumed executive powers.

In 2001, Musharraf declared himself President after the forced resignation of Rafiq Tarar. After the 2002 parliamentary elections, Musharraf transferred executive powers to newly elected Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali. There have been two more prime ministers but Musharraf remains the country’s strongman and public face. He is a dictator.

With the growing rise of Islamic fundamentalism inside Pakistan, a relationship existed between them and the Taliban prior to 9/11. Shortly after 9/11, Secretary of State Collin Powell went to Pakistan and essentially made Musharraf an offer he couldn’t refuse: cooperate in the war on terror or lose power. Musharraf became an ally. It is an alliance that resembles a gymnast holding a hot bowel of soup while navigating a balance beam.

As 2006 wound down the Taliban were consolidating control of Northern Pakistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates left for Pakistan today to discuss the possibility of a new Taliban offensive this spring. As the New York Times reports,

“Pakistan, a close U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism, has faced charges that the Taliban militia stage attacks from Pakistan against Afghan government troops and NATO- and U.S.-led coalition troops.”

I have no doubt professionals inside our national security bureaucracy agonize about Pakistan and Gates trip partly reflects their concern. Is there a long-term strategy in place though or are we merely reacting tactically to events? Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is a hotbed for radical Islam. The Taliban has secured territory inside Pakistan to help carry out their operations. Furthermore, only an unpopular military dictatorship has managed to prevent religious extremists from ruling Pakistan.

Who is really in charge of Pakistan? Is the dictator Musharaf really in control or merely a nominal strongman? Obviously the Taliban are enjoying cooperation inside Pakistan’s intelligence and military. Is Musharaf talking from both sides of his mouth to survive or is he losing his grip on power?

What happens if Pakistan is taken over by religious extremists? How would India respond? India is a nation governed by nationalists that can make America’s neocons blush with embarrassment. Politicians such as John McCain have made critical comments about NATO's performance in Afghanistan recently, as you can read about by clicking here and here. Obviously, McCain prefers to inoculate the Bush Administration from blame instead of contemplating a long term strategy in the region.

But the key relationship remains between America and Pakistan. If Pakistan slides off the abyss we’ll have a far bigger mess on our hands than Iraq, Lebanon, Iran or even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Afghanistan’s war against the Taliban, already undermined because of America’s occupation in Iraq would collapse. India might well opt to occupy Pakistan, resulting in a war on the sub-continent. Such a conflict would have a ripple effect in China and Iran. Hopefully, we have anticipated this contingency and nurtured contacts inside Pakistan in case the current regime is toppled.

Pakistan is a paradox and a mirror image of Iran. They already have nuclear weapons and Iran doesn’t, regardless of the Bush Administration’s propaganda to suggest otherwise. Iran’s population is increasingly pro-American while their president enjoys making provocative anti-American and anti-Israeli speeches. More democracy in Iran would be to America’s benefit while in Pakistan it would likely result in a hostile and dangerous regime. The status quo inside Pakistan undermines America’s ability to prevent the Taliban from completely re-taking Afghanistan, but any change will likely make the situation worse.

Congress prefers debating symbolic resolutions with no tangible impact to end America’s military occupation in Iraq. The Senate was paralyzed last week by their inability to even hold a debate about in effect, doing nothing. This week the House of Representatives will have their debate about doing nothing. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is consumed with avoiding official defeat in Iraq on their watch and maneuvering to war against Iran. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton is attempting rhetorical jujitsu about her record on Iraq and Republican frontrunner John McCain is off the deep end.

Is there anyone contemplating or formulating a strategy about the Pakistan conundrum five years down the road? Is there a combination of economic and diplomatic initiatives, that could help stabilize the country as an ally? Is it worth attempting to mediate or broker a peace agreement between Pakistan and India? Will Congress help formulate a strategy or merely criticize NATO for not providing more troops in Afghanistan and deliberate over non-binding resolutions in Iraq?

Why would any country of NATO deploy more troops given America’s diminished geopolitical position? Why should our allies have any confidence in America’s leadership in Afghanistan or skill in keeping Pakistan from blowing up?

Is anyone in power or running for president contemplating how we can replace the global war on terror with a more sustainable containment strategy instead? The place to start is by tackling the strategic conundrum of Pakistan. They are the finger in the dike.

Afghanistan: The Forgotten War

How many voters went to the polls in 2004 believing Iraq was behind 9/11 and didn’t give Afghanistan a second thought? The oxygen of our political discourse is consumed by Iraq. Some of America’s most prestigious citizens collaborated on the Iraq Study Group. Politicians from both parties are proposing alternatives from supporting President Bush’s escalation, to partition and even cutting off funding.

Understandably, Iraq merits our attention. We were criminally misled into a war of choice that has jeopardized America’s geopolitical position and undermined our moral authority. Iraq is largely responsible for the Democratic Party’s congressional majority and they’ve promised intense oversight. Why I wonder doesn’t Afghanistan merit similar scrutiny? I’d be curious to learn what an Afghanistan Study Group might come up with.

It seems not enough people with power or influence give a damn about Afghanistan beyond vague references to redistributing troops from Iraq. Sloppy negligence of our war against the Taliban is too important to ignore. As important as ending the war in Iraq is, we also must demand accountability about the depth of failure in Afghanistan and properly assess whatever options we have left.

On January 27th, Dan Restrepo from the Center of American Progress, observed in an opinion piece submitted to the Boston Globe, that the Bush Administration regarded Colombia as a model for Afghanistan. President Bush even nominated our ambassador to Colombia, William Wood, to be the next chief envoy in Kabul.

I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised. It wasn’t so long ago delusional conservatives compared Iraqi society with El Salvador in the 1980s. So why not regard the nation of Colombia, currently in the throes of scandal as a model for Afghanistan? In the Bush Administration’s peculiar logic, disaster is a model for replication.

Colombia’s experience with narco-trafficking and insurgencies is certainly worth studying as Restrepo acknowledges. Drug trafficking became Colombia’s most viable economic sector and the individuals behind the narco-trade are typically ruthless and homicidal. Without viable economic sectors beyond drug trafficking, the state of Colombia has teetered on the abyss.

Restrepo also acknowledges the Colombian government may finally have the upper hand in their enduring struggle against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC). However, as Restrepo also notes, unlike the FARC, the Taliban are enjoying safe haven in Pakistan. Restrepo closes his op-ed with this,

“The Colombianization of US-Afghanistan policy is rife with peril, not the least because it is unclear that US policy in Colombia has been a success or that Colombia is the shining example the administration would like to believe.”

While the Bush Administration pursues their policy of “Colombianization,” the Taliban are ascending. Robert Burns reported in Time Magazine that the Taliban are exploiting their recent peace with Pakistan to increase attacks on U.S. and allied forces in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan. Most disturbingly, Burns reports that,

“Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said in an interview that Taliban attacks surged by 200% in December, and a U.S. military intelligence officer said that since the peace deal went into effect Sept. 5 the number of attacks in the border area has grown by 300%.”

Currently, they’re 20,000 troops in Afghanistan and they obviously can’t pacify the metastasizing crisis. Financed by the opium trade as well as donors in the Persian Gulf and enjoying a base of operations in Pakistan, the Taliban remain formidable. As recent history suggests, blowback in Afghanistan equals calamity.

It’s fashionable to say we need more troops in Afghanistan and our forces should be diverted from Iraq. Recently, I interviewed Congressman Jerrold Nadler and he offered that opinion. Caroline Wadhams from The Center for American Progress also supports a surge in Afghanistan:

“It is not too late for America to respond. Troop levels in Afghanistan should be doubled to 40,000 from the approximately 20,000 U.S. troops deployed there today. These troops should be sent from Iraq to Afghanistan under NATO leadership as reinforcements. The United States must also provide more equipment and training for Afghan security forces.”

Yet I can’t help but wonder if a surge in Afghanistan is just as wrongheaded as the current one in Iraq. Are 20,000 additional troops really going to reverse the downward spiral in Afghanistan? Wadhams does note a troop surge by itself is insufficient:

“Many of the problems in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, will not be solved by military means alone. Greater investment in Afghanistan’s economy and its reconstruction is also essential to creating a stable state. The United States and the international community need to commit to a well-funded and well-managed long term economic development effort, and the government of Afghanistan should take the lead.”

We can’t do squat in Afghanistan without an international consensus on how to move forward. Any consenus may also require an understanding with the Iranians who are not fond of the Taliban. Deploying additional troops is simply wasted bloodshed until we can formulate a strategy of economic development, combined with fostering alliances among Afghanistan’s most effective tribal leaders. Managing relationships inside Afghanistan’s tribal culture and their brutal rivalries is tricky business – even more complicated than initiating a rapprochement with Iran. These are not exactly Jeffersonian Democrats and the leaders harbor ambitions about emerging as top dog.

Our response in Afghanistan since 9/11 has only diminished our geopolitical position. Going forward requires sophisticated presidential leadership and sagacious oversight from the legislative branch. Otherwise, Afghanistan will join Iraq as twin failures of American statecraft. Two-more years of the Bush Administration, presidential candidates offering little beyond platitudes about Afghanistan and a congress pre-occuppied with non-binding resolutions for Iraq doesn’t imbue me with confidence.