Targeting Bin Laden

It has only been a few months since Bin Laden was killed in a "top secret" Navy Seal operation, and already the Discovery channel has a full length documentary outlining the event in extraordinary detail (including a full set of interviews with Obama about the decision making process). Boy that was fast! How long is sensitive information like this normally supposed to stay classified? You rarely see television documentaries on highly classified black ops, especially so soon after the event. I watched the doc with great interest and enjoyed it, even Obama's detailed descriptions of his decisions was entertaining. Obama has every right to thump his chest on this one, and I can understand if they fast tracked the declassification process in order to get the film crew in and out before the 10th year anniversary of 9/11. Had I been President and killed Bin Laden, I would probably have done the same thing.

Would India Be Justified Invading Pakistan?

Today's poll question; would India be justified invading Pakistan to take out terrorist groups? The latest bombings in Mumbai, the 4th in 8 years, might have been carried out by militants operating out of Pakistan (as has been widely speculated after past attacks). If the government of Pakistan is unwilling, or perhaps too weak to stop militant activity within its own borders (Bin Laden for example), does India have justification to do it themselves? Yes, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, which is probably the biggest reason India has not already conducted military operations across the border. The question is, how many times can one country be attacked before they fight back? The country of Gandhi might believe that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but being repeatedly punched in the face can also do serious damage.

The nuclear bombs are a complicating factor, adding to that fears that the current Pakistani government is sitting on a house of cards. India doesn't want the inmates to takeover the asylum, so there is a strong probability that they are holding back their response so long as the current regime is in power. The current regime may be powerless to stop the militants, but it is preferable for them to be in power rather than the militants being in power. At the same time, the Pakistani government can't green light the Indian military entering Pakistan because that would not go over well with the Pakistani street.

Can somebody please tell me how to solve this problem? Or is the least destructive option be that India accept bi-annual terrorist attacks?

Bin Laden Dead!

Wow, the night before the Canadian Election, news is breaking that the United States has recovered the body of Osama Bin Laden who was killed by an American special ops unit deep inside Pakistan personally authorized by President Obama (initial reports that it was a predator drone attack were not correct). Well done America! If this is indeed true, expect Obama to get a big bounce in the polls. This dramatically increases his probability of re-election in 2012. This will be the big conversation around the water cooler on Canada's election day. Canadian troops are preparing to withdraw from Afghanistan, which is great timing.

Pakistan Partisanship

This is insane. A Liberal MP has accused the Conservative government of ignoring the flood disaster in Pakistan because there aren't enough Pakistani votes in Canada to make it worth their while. The government's rapid response to the earthquake in Haiti however allegedly only happened because Stephen Harper wanted to pander to the Haitian votes in Montreal. Really? Haiti is an impoverished nation in our own backyard that can't take care of itself, while Pakistan is a nuclear power with a very large military on the other side of the planet. Are we going to send a military response team to a country that won't allow NATO boots to touch their soil?

There are an estimated 90,000 Haitians living in Montreal, a city where in 2008 the Tories only received 16% of the popular vote (easily their lowest total in any major Canadian city). If every single Haitian living in Montreal voted Conservative, they could bump their vote share to 19% and still win zero seats. Their best riding in the city is Mount Royal (27%), but the Tory candidate still finished 10,000 votes behind Irwin Cotler. Are there 10,000 Haitians living in that neighborhood? Saying that the government only responded quickly in Haiti to pander to a tiny fraction of voters in a city where they have almost no chance of winning even a single seat is insane!

Jim Karygiannis, give your head a shake! There are more people of Pakistani descent in Canada than Haitian. If disaster response were just about votes, it would make sense to cater to the larger population.

The Future of Online Political Advocacy

Is online political advocacy the future of our democracy? I'm sure proponents will credit new media and online mobilization of activists for the election of Barak Obama, but I'm trying to figure out if this is just a fad or the future. Are the good old days of discussing politics with your friends and family in the comfort of your own home long behind us? Is the future Facebook? Is it now expected that we display all our political opinions for online consumption on sites that are used to share pictures and correspondence with friends and family? Instead of telling my Aunt about my golf vacation, what I should do instead is whip her into a fit of rage at the Liberal Party.

Of course, I do participate in online political advocacy in the form of a political blog. I don't force my political beliefs on others. People generally find my site by visiting the Blogging Tories, where people come to find political opinion. When they arrive, it says right at the top of my page that I vote Conservative because that is a disclaimer that I think people should see before they read my opinion. My audience craves political discussion, and they search me out if they want to read it. I don't go knocking door to door like a Jehovah’s Witness.

If Facebook is the future (as the CBC suggests), then I should be plugging CALNDTJ: Canadians Against Liberals Not Doing Their Job. If you can't beat them, should we join them?

Here are some of my polling results from early January.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF FACEBOOK?

Keep in touch with family and friends (88%)
Incite political activism (12%)

DO YOU HAVE A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT?

No (52%)
Yes (48%)

DO YOU HAVE A TWITTER ACCOUNT?

No (82%)
Yes (18%)

Does the Taliban know it's Christmas?

I read recently in the newspaper that the Pakistani government is ending its military offensive in Waziristan, surely a welcome gift to the enemy.  What remains unclear, is if any strategic objective was attained by the very necessary offensive, or if this was simply a facade to placate NATO.  According to their spokespeople, Pakistan killed hundreds of enemy militants, but according to American military intelligence there is little to no evidence of any heavy fighting.  It would appear that the 4 months warning that Pakistan issued to the people of Waziristan that they were coming was sufficient time for combatants to clear out.  All this begs the question, was this a feigned offensive?  Did they ever intend to inflict a death blow to our enemy?

Meanwhile, the withdrawal comes amid speculation that Pakistani military leaders may attempt a coup to overthrow the democratically elected government.  Government Ministers have been prevented from leaving the country in some instances, where police made it clear that they take orders from Generals and Judges, not elected politicians.  The big question is, what if anything should NATO do if a coup takes place, and if the new leadership will be allied with radical Islamists?  I'm sure India already has a battle plan to invade Pakistan if the worst case scenario comes to fruition, but if the inmates take over the asylum, will Obama have the stones to do what needs to be done?

It is difficult to accurately measure what if anything was achieved in the Waziristan campaign, as the Pakistani military did not invite Wolf Blitzer to come along with them.  They control the media message in their conflict zone, and thus we are at their mercy for information.  I have always maintained that there needs to be a joint military operation between Pakistan and NATO inside sovereign Pakistani territory to pound the militant command and control like a hammer and anvil.  But I suppose if Pakistan never intended to crush the Islamic militants, then it would be counter to their objective to invite a superior fighting force to accomplish what they don't want accomplished.

I suppose all that I can really do from my perch is just keep my fingers crossed and keep my faith in the brave men and women of our Armed Forces.

Harper Dances with Bollywood

I have been watching the footage today of my Prime Minister Stephen Harper on his diplomatic foray into India, and I must say that I am proud to have him represent me abroad. Watching him visit sites of the terrorist invasion of Mumbai last year, lighting a candle to honour the victims and survivors, I need to say thank you. Sometimes you watch your leader on television representing you abroad and you need to applaud and say well done! I'll tell you what, I could imagine that if I were to see Stephane Dion up on stage with a troupe of Bollywood dancers, I would have become queasy.

I am a big fan of India, and I would like someone to find a way for India and Pakistan to get along. I know that is a tall order, and I personally don't have any groundbreaking ideas on the matter. I just know that it needs to happen, and if it does happen, the world will be a better place. But maybe it is impossible. It may be that the only thing that could ever unite India and Pakistan would be Earth being invaded by space aliens and the two foes need to join forces to defeat E.T?

I don't know. I do know that if there is ever a Peace Summit between India and Pakistan, I would like Chris Alexander to be leading the Canadian envoy.

Cheering for the Pakistani Army

I would just like to extend my best wishes to the Pakistani soldiers embarking on the military offensive in South Waziristan. Can we get a few embedded journalists to put this on television so that I may cheer for these brave soldiers from my home on the other side of the planet? This offensive absolutely needs to be done, and I applaud the Pakistani Government for pressing the advantage. Don't forget, NATO has some kick ass special ops units; if you can green light a few steps across the border, we can open up two strong fronts on a common enemy. Wasn't that what Benazir Bhutto was intending to do before the crazies had her killed? Patton and Montgomery needed each other.

As I wrote a few weeks ago: My plea to Pakistani Canadians.

Brett Hart was at his best when teamed with Jim "the anvil" Niedhart.

Why I won't blame the Pakistani government for terrorist attacks against India

If you have been following my recent and past opinions on Pakistan, I would like to add some content. When atrocious acts like the armed attacks on Mumbai happen, I want to see the puppet masters brought to justice but I will not blame the Pakistani government. It is not in their best interests to provoke India, and as such have nothing to gain by allowing insurgents to initiate a large-scale attack on India from within Pakistan. It doesn't make any sense how Pakistan could benefit by galvanizing India into any military action.

Conversely, if there are extremist elements within Pakistan who endeavour to overthrow the Pakistani government, it benefits the bad guys to convince India that they are under attack by Pakistan. Therefore when I see India attacked by fringe elements within Pakistan, I do not blame the government for the incidents. I want to see the Pakistani government respond with appropriate force, but I will not blame them for the origin. What I will say is that the fringe element in Pakistan needs to be put down. Again, it reminds me of Old Yeller. NATO can't do it, India shouldn't try to do it, and the Pakistani military CAN do it. The Pakistani military is one of the best trained fighting forces on the planet. Those guys can kick some serious ass. I want to encourage their leadership to keep their boots to the throat of the bad guys.

The British oversaw the Partition of India and Pakistan once upon a time, and it could have been handled better. The animosity that exists between the two countries was born of their emergence from British colonialism. You all need to put that behind you. I don't know how to solve the problem of the disputed territories, but we need to start building a friendship between Pakistan and India. I am of Scottish descent, and my ancestors put down their weapons after centuries of conflict with the British and learned not only how to get along, but how to prosper from the friendship. When Scotland and England finally made a lasting peace, a little something happened that many call "the Scottish Enlightenment" (where the world was gifted with Scottish scholars like Adam Smith). Both sides benefited from calming down, and I believe we need a similar armistice between the government of India and the government of Pakistan. I know it is complicated, but I believe it needs to happen.

The real enemies are the aggressive insurgents in the Himalayas who want to collapse the entire Western economic model. Those bad guys know no borders. The world would be a better place if Pakistan could de-escalate from the border with India and crack some heads along the border with Afghanistan.

Re: Pakistan

In light of my plea today to those of Pakistani origin living in Canada, you should perhaps read the piece I wrote in April about that crisis in the Swat Valley. Read what I wrote in March when considering what I wrote in September.

http://pragmatictory.blogspot.com/2009/03/pakistan.html

My plea to Pakistani Canadians

I have met a number of Pakistani Canadians in my life time, and I proudly declare myself a strong supporter of this demographic in Canadian society. They are hard working, intelligent, and when you get the opportunity to engage them in a thoughtful conversation it is often a rewarding experience. If more Pakistani people want to move to Canada, then I would support increasing the quota.

But to paraphrase Tom Hanks in Apollo 13, "Islamabad, you have a problem." The armed revolutionary movement in the north of your country has become rabid and needs to be put down. The problem spilled into the Swat Valley this year, and the Pakistani military responded with appropriate force. Pakistan has a very potent military, and the only chance NATO has of defeating this "insurgency" in Afghanistan hinges on Pakistan maintaining the offensive. When Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, I was very sad. When her obituary was featured in Time Magazine Jan 14, 2008, I not only purchased the magazine, I framed it and put it up on my wall to honour her memory.

To Pakistani Canadians who still have family in Pakistan, I would encourage you to go down to your local video store and look for copies of a North American classic called Old Yeller. Maybe send a few copies back home. This film is perfect allegory for your problem with the militant Pashtuns. You feel a natural kinship with them, and once upon a time they helped save you from harm, but once they become rabid and turn on you, they must be put down.

Old Yeller. Available at a video store near you.

Pakistan

I have been closely following recent events in Pakistan, and I am officially concerned that the inmates are within striking distance of taking over the asylum. My “spider sense” first started to tingle on our allegiance with Pakistan a few years ago when I watched President Mushareff appear on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart to pump his new book In The Line of Fire. Why he chose a comedy show to explain himself does not make any sense to me, but he carefully clarified his position after 9/11 as one where he could not openly declare war on the Pashtun/Taliban, but he could not avoid helping the Americans. When he said that he was forced to enter an alliance with America because of the “you’re either with us or against us” motto of the Bush Administration, I recalled the quote by Napoleon Bonaparte that “it is better to have a known enemy than a forced ally”

In the past year, Mushareff was forced out of power by political pressure and it looked as though former President Benazir Bhutto was destined to replace him, until she was assassinated. Elections were held shortly thereafter, and her impotent widow was elected President of Pakistan. The journey since that election has been a downward spiral of appeasement that would have embarrassed Neville Chamberlain. He has consistently made concessions to the Islamists and has actually lost sovereign territory within Pakistan. A further escalation of terrorist acts against India has complicated matters, as Pakistani paranoia has led to a mobilization of military forces to the border with India away from the border with Afghanistan. The Pakistani military is one of the best trained and effective on the planet; however their current objective is not doing anything to help the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

As Canadian forces are actively fighting for victory in Afghanistan, I have been analyzing what is required to achieve success. The bulk of the Afghan insurgency is not in coordinated military action, but rather destructive destabilization tactics like road side bombs and isolated terrorist attacks. The main area of concern is within Pakistan itself, and the power that the pro-Taliban Islamists are acquiring in the territory surrounding the Pakistani capitol of Islamabad. If the Pakistan army is unable or unwilling to knock out Taliban/Al Qaeda command and control within their sovereign territory, it then falls on NATO to accomplish that objective. The possibility that Islamists could ascend to political power in Pakistan and gain control of their military and nuclear arsenal is extremely alarming.

Part of the unwillingness of Mushareff to engage in open warfare in the North was because not all of them are foreign fighters. Many of them are Pakistani militants sympathetic to the Pashtun/Taliban fight in Afghanistan. It is the same element that helped defeat the Soviets 20 years ago, a large group of people who are among the friends and relatives of members of the Pakistani military. It is like if Quebec were conducting terrorist attacks in Maine, there would be conflicted feelings in the Canadian Armed Forces on the degree of force that we should employ when quelling the violence of our brethren. The question of the day is at what point does it become acceptable for NATO to invade Pakistan? Not to topple the government and occupy the country per say, but to defeat our enemies along the border in Pakistani sovereign territory? I’m not sure I want to know the answer to that question, much less see those circumstances unfold and force us into action.

I don’t even know what to call the people we are fighting. Al Qaeda has evolved to the point where small militia and rebel groups around the world have entered into a soft alliance with Bin Laden’s “movement” and run operations that senior leadership likely has no command or control over. Their common purpose is the overthrow of existing regional power structures which are currently being held together by Western capitalism. I shudder to call them rebels or revolutionaries, and instead have grown fond of “insurgents”. Many Pakistani people are actively aiding that insurgency in Afghanistan, and until Al Qaeda/Taliban are soundly defeated, I strongly believe that it is folly to withdraw.

I have been busy studying the underlying theories of guerrilla warfare, where the most influential tacticians in the modern age were Lawrence of Arabia and Chairman Mao. As Martin Van Creveld wrote;

“Drawing on his own experiences as leader of China’s civil war, Mao, followed by his Vietnamese student Giap, believed that the first phase of guerrilla warfare ought to consist of isolated hit and run attacks against enemy forces, with the aim of weakening and demoralizing them. The second phase would witness the consolidation of guerrilla power in some remote, outlying and difficult area to access; from there they would continue their work of propaganda, harassment, and sabotage. Once the enemy had been sufficiently weakened and started to retreat, the guerrillas, embarking on the third phase of the campaign, would resort to open warfare. The real trick was to select carefully the moment for this phase to begin.”

We are at a point in history where you can believe one of two possible modus operandi for Bin Laden. 1) He wants to be King of Saudi Arabia, or 2) He is actually working on behalf of the Saudi government to destabilize the Middle East and drive up oil prices. I will acknowledge that the latter is as likely as the former, but I do not believe that George Bush was in on it, despite what many popular conspiracy theorists in the United States might argue. Whatever the motive, it is clear that Osama’s objective was to draw the United States military into Afghanistan and bleed them to death like the Soviets. There Bin Laden had an existing infrastructure of caves, tunnels, and bunkers scattered throughout a remote mountain range that is extremely difficult to access. By comparison, Iraq is easily accessible by tanks and heavy machinery, and is predominantly flat desert with nowhere to hide but the cities.

During the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, there was a substantial migration of young men from throughout the Middle East, who wanted to enlist to fight the Holy war against the evil invaders. That is a big reason why the Mujahedeen were able to sustain their resistance for that many years despite being largely outmatched and sustaining heavy losses. Afghanistan is a far more challenging battleground for a conventional army, and I am sure it is the preferred theatre for Jihadists to fight their Holy War. The glitch being that the international community overwhelmingly approved of NATO military action in Afghanistan, which the Soviets did not have.

When the United States invaded Iraq “illegally” it took the focus of world attention off of Afghanistan and shifted it to Babylon. As a result, the “bad guys” then shifted many of their own resources to engage the American military in Iraq, which became the new preferred destination for so-called “weekend Jihadists” from around the Middle East. The problem for the bad guys is that it is remarkably more difficult to engage the American military in Iraq than it is in Afghanistan. Whenever they engage the Yankees in direct battle, they incur heavy losses. Therefore their objective is to blend in to the civilian population and plant bombs all over the place, targeting civilians and Americans alike. This is where they differ the most strategically from Mao, who believed in winning the popular support of the people, not terrorizing them. Now the people in Iraq have turned on the Jihadists, and most young men are joining the new Iraqi army, which is now able to conduct independent military operations. I just have absolutely no idea if the Iraqi government and military can hold it together when the United States leaves. Is it unreasonable to assume that Muqtata Al Sadr is going to attempt to overthrow the government at first opportunity despite only garnering 3% of the popular vote in the recent election?

Back in Afghanistan, the insurgents have begun to gather in larger numbers and more frequently engage NATO troops in combat. This suggests that either they are recruiting larger numbers, or for whatever the circumstances they are now emboldened and taking the offensive. I can only speculate that perhaps more insurgents are taking the long march from Iraq, across Iran, to Afghanistan. A march I assume that many young Arab combatants will be making upon American withdrawal from Iraq. You can bet Iran will facilitate this migration, if not build them a highway.

It is clear that the United States is not going to be able to pacify Baghdad indefinitely, and I don’t even know if they need to. I’m just wondering if there is a way to draw the insurgents out of the cities to be engaged in open combat out in the desert. Perhaps a Feigned Withdrawal? If they were to “fake” a hasty retreat from Iraq, where they bait the enemy with glaring weaknesses in their defenses, assuming insurgents would pursue when America withdraws; could that work? They might just let them leave, then march over to continue their fight in Afghanistan. And somebody over there is definitely trying to pick a fight with India. Whether we take the initiative and march boots into Pakistan or wait for India to ask us to is a question worth asking.

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war"

-Albert Einstein

Put A Little Love In Your Heart...

During the final months and years of the Bush Administration, I recall many pundits and comedians on the left decrying that the destructive foreign policy of Bush and Cheney has bred a global environment of hatred against America. Sure Al Qaeda declared war on America halfway through the Clinton Presidency, but that spicy little slice of life is often overlooked by American Liberals. Popular culture on the left wing enjoys blaming all of the world’s turmoil on rich Republicans stealing from the world’s poor. During the campaign they pleaded and hoped for a candidate who could change global public opinion, put a little love in their hearts, and that the world would be a better place. Obama was elected, and the response across the Globe was that of jubilation and excitement.

For those who have been too consumed with events inside America to look out the window and see what has been happening around the world since President Obama was elected and need to be updated on just how much better the world is since that inspiring victory, here goes…

1) Islamic militants launched co-ordinated attacks at several crowded locations across India's financial capital, killing over 100 people and terrorizing a city with a prolonged hostage crisis at the Taj Mahal.

2) Thousands protest the government of Pakistan, which has signed a treaty of surrender against pro-Taliban elements in the North, giving them self government, and losing control of a valuable piece of real estate roughly 100 miles from the capitol city of Islamabad.

3) Iran is demanding a public apology from Obama and announced that it is escalating its nuclear program.

4) The leader of the Sudan, now charged with war crimes by the International Court, has basically told the UN to go fuck themselves and expelled aid workers from Darfur.

5) The Chinese navy has been aggressively harassing American cargo ships in International waters; starting days after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the country.

6) North Korea is mobilizing its military to the border with South Korea as it prepares to test long range missiles, threatening to invade their neighbor if anyone tries to stop them.

7) Comrade Hugo Chavez has forced through a mandate for life referendum, and has used his military to seize control of an American based food producer who failed to meet his unsustainably low price controls due to inflation caused by massive spending amidst declining revenues devaluing the Venezuelan currency.

8) Bolivia has expelled a senior American Diplomat

9) Civil war is once again escalating in Somalia, though personally I blame that cluster-fuck on Bill Clinton pulling out American troops after Blackhawk Down.

10) Mexico continues to be in a state violent warfare as the government continues its crackdown on drug cartels. Over 1000 police officers and troops were killed in the fighting over the past year, and the fighting is only getting worse.

Today’s Blog post was brought to you by Al Green and Annie Lennox, and their song “Put a Little Love in Your Heart” As a satirical juxtaposition for the change that Obama’s audacious hope has brought to the world…is the world a better place?

If you want the world to know
We won't let hatred grow
Put a little love in your heart

And the world will be a better place
And the world will be a better place
For you and me
You just wait and see
Wait and see

Take a good look around
And if you're lookin' down
Put a little love in your heart

I hope when you decide
Kindness will be your guide
Put a little love in your heart

And the world will be a better place
And the world will be a better place
For you and me
You just wait and see

Put a little love in your heart
Put a little love in your heart
Put a little love in your heart
Put a little love in your heart
Put a little love in -
Put a little love in your heart...

Afghanistan

I will say this about the war in Afghanistan; I understand that Canadian public opinion has been gradually turning against the conflict, as democracies tend to do in wartime. I believe our NATO allies should rotate into the most volatile region and give our troops some relief, but withdrawing completely before the war is won will have disastrous consequences in the long term. Allowing the inmates to takeover the asylum is folly. Having said that, so long as Pakistan ignores or aids the insurgency, while by all accounts Taliban/Al Qaeda are running command and control from northern Pakistan, we can't win. We must be allowed to strike at the beating heart of the insurgency. Which is where the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the ouster of Mushareff are so alarming. Most Pakistanis are moderates, but if the minority radicals are able to secure leadership of the Pakistani military, we're fucked.

Bhutto and her pro-Western ideologies included allowing NATO to run military operations in the volatile mountainous north of the country. Where I first turned on Mushareff was after watching his appearance on the Jon Stewart show, where he attempted to justify making peace with the Taliban as the best course of action. He played both sides, and adopted a strategy that would have made Neville Chamberlain proud. In the past year, Iraq has become less violent as Afghanistan has become more violent. To me, that suggests a migration of insurgents from one country to another. While on paper I support a de-escalation in Iraq in favour of an escalation in Afghanistan, as does Barack Obama, I remind you that a war in the Himalayan Mountains is remarkably more difficult to fight. If we do that without striking Taliban/Al Qaeda bases in northern Pakistan, we are going to follow the same path as the Soviets.

In our search for allies, I can name one that has already drawn up a plan to invade Pakistan, and that is India. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as the Arab proverb goes. Trust me, those militant attacks in Mumbai have only strengthened their resolve. We are all afraid because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, but trust me, if the wrong people gain control of those weapons, India will be asking us for help, not the other way around. Adding insult to injury, the current Pakistani government is making further treaties with the Taliban. They are either ignorant of history, or acting out of fear.

I recently listened to a Pakistani spokesman speaking on the BBC about NATO sending Predator drones on missions over the Pakistani border. He said "they do not understand that they are just breeding hatred". I would remind him that prior to the attacks of 9/11, the embassy bombings by Al Qaeda in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole, and so on and so forth, the American military weren't sending unmanned aircraft on bombing runs in Pashtunistan. Yet none the less, the hatred was already there and boiling over the surface. Bomb their command and control targets and they will hate you, or do not bomb their military operations and they are still going to hate you? Seems to me like a simple choice...

"An appeaser is a man who feeds a Crocodile, hoping it will eat him last"

-Winston Churchill