News flash. Monday Oct 19th

USA- Afghanistan

Today is the great day of Afghanistan coverage. Eric Schmitt of the NY Times reports on the income sources of the Taliban.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban have imposed an elaborate system to tax the cultivation, processing and shipment of opium, as well as other crops like wheat grown in the territory they control, American and Afghan officials say. In the Middle East, Taliban leaders have sent fund-raisers to Arab countries to keep the insurgency’s coffers brimming with cash.

Estimates of the Taliban’s annual revenue vary widely. Proceeds from the illicit drug trade alone range from $70 million to $400 million a year, according to Pentagon and United Nations officials. By diversifying their revenue stream beyond opium, the Taliban are frustrating American and NATO efforts to weaken the insurgency by cutting off its economic lifelines, the officials say.

Peter Bakery and Sabrina Tavernise are reporting from Washington on a potential delay over the troop decision Obama's.

he question at the heart of the matter, said President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is not “how many troops you send, but do you have a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need?” He appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” and CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

He echoed the thoughts of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a top Obama ally and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who said in a separate interview from Kabul, “I don’t see how President Obama can make a decision about the committing of our additional forces, or even the further fulfillment of our mission that’s here today, without an adequate government in place.” His interview was broadcast on “Face the Nation.”

The Wall Street Journal is taking a closer look at Karzai's stand on the election in Afghanistan.

Thousands of Mr. Karzai's supporters, wearing black, marched through the town of Spin Boldak in the southern province of Kandahar, near the Pakistani border. They chanted against "foreign interference" in the elections.

"The foreigners are trying to push a second round, and we are not going to participate this time," said Talim Khan, who marched in Spin Boldak. "They don't respect our votes. Despite threats that the Taliban will cut off our nose and ears we went to the polling station. We won't do so again."

Smaller protests took place in other parts of the province. Elsewhere, a group of Islamic scholars in the eastern part of the country issued statements decrying the ECC and calling the country "under occupation." A number of pro-Karzai lawmakers Sunday issued fiery denunciations in parliament of foreign meddling.

Foreign Policy weighs in with a briefing on U.S. strategy in dealing with Afghanistan, arguing for humility. another argument for COIN.

American policy over the next five or 10 years must proceed from the understanding that the ultimate exit strategy for international forces from South Asia is Pakistan's economic success and political normalization, manifested in an Army that shares power with civilian leaders in a reasonably stable constitutional bargain, and in the increasing integration of Pakistan's economy with regional economies, including India's. Such an evolution will likely consolidate the emerging view within Pakistan's elites that the country requires a new and less self-defeating national security doctrine. As in the Philippines, Colombia, and Indonesia, the pursuit of a more balanced, less coup-ridden, more modern political-military order in Pakistan need not be complete or confused with perfection for it to gradually pinch the space in which al Qaeda, the Taliban, and related groups now operate. Moreover, in South Asia, outsiders need not construct or impose this modernizing pathway as a neo-imperial project. The hope for durable change lies first of all in the potential for normalizing relations between Pakistan and India, a negotiation between elites in those two countries that is already well under way, without Western mediation, and is much more advanced than is typically appreciated. Its success is hardly assured, but because of the transformational effect such normalization would create, the effects of American policies in the region on its prospects should be carefully assessed.

USA- domestic:

Reporting on climate change, and especially energy companies stand on green legislation the NY Times argues that a split exists in the energy sector.


Paul Krugman gives his opinion on the state of the banks, arguing that especiallz banks in the lending businss are still struggling to cope.

Newsweek is reporting on some liberal arts colleges coming up with three year programs.

For all of these reasons, some forward-looking colleges like Hartwick are rethinking the old way of doing things and questioning decades-old assumptions about what a college degree means. For instance, why does it have to take four years to earn a diploma? This fall, 16 first-year students and four second-year students at Hartwick, located halfway between Binghamton and Albany, enrolled in the school's new three-year degree program. According to the college, the plan is designed for high-ability, highly motivated students who wish to save money or to move along more rapidly toward advanced degrees.

By eliminating that extra year, three-year degree students save 25 percent in costs. Instead of taking 30 credits a year, these students take 40. During January, Hartwick runs a four-week course during which students may earn three to four credits on or off campus, including a number of international sites. Summer courses are not required, but a student may enroll in them—and pay extra. Three-year students get first crack at course registration. There are no changes in the number of courses professors teach or in their pay.

USA - Africa:

Will Inboden from Shadow govt at FP is taking an insightful look at Obama's Sudan strategy.

USA - Iran:

After the terrorist attack in Iran, the Islamic republic is blaming and threatening the U.S. and UK.

The Baluchi insurgent group Jundallah — or Soldiers of God — took responsibility for the bombings, which included a suicide attack on a community meeting led by Revolutionary Guards and a roadside attack on a car full of Guards, both in the area of the city of Pishin.

Jundallah, whose members are Sunni Muslims, has claimed responsibility for other attacks in the region in recent years, and is believed to have killed hundreds of Iranian soldiers and civilians. The southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchistan has been the scene of attacks in the past, and in April the government put the Guards Corps in control of security there to try to stop the escalating violence. [...]Iranian officials said they had evidence the attack was launched from within Pakistan, where Jundallah is based, and the Foreign Ministry late Sunday summoned Pakistan’s chargé d’affaires, Press TV said.

A Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman, Abdul Basit, told the Daily Times newspaper: “Pakistan is not involved in terrorist activities,” adding, “We are striving to eradicate this menace.”

Ali Larijani, the speaker of Parliament, said the United States bore some responsibility for the attacks. “If they want relations with Iran, they must be frank,” he said, according to the semiofficial ISNA news service, adding, “We consider the recent terrorist measure the outcome of the U.S. measures.”

In the past, Iranian officials have accused the United States of financing and arming Jundallah.

The United States condemned the bombings and denied any connection with them. “We condemn this act of terrorism and mourn the loss of innocent lives,” said Ian C. Kelly, a State Department spokesman. “Reports of alleged U.S. involvement are completely false.”

News-flash 16th Oct 2009

Here a new feature and finally some input again. For the next 3 months, this page will feature a newsflash of U.S.- transatlantic news.

USA - domestic:
The Washington Post keeps up his coverage of the Health care debate with this piece on perks in the medicare advancement.

President Obama has proposed cutting more than $100 billion in subsidies over 10 years, a contentious component of health-care reform that will be fought in earnest as the bills move through Congress. But unlike some issues that touch off partisan sparring, Medicare Advantage has an unlikely band of bipartisan defenders who have already battled to restore $10 billion of the proposed reductions.

Dan Balz of the WP is taking a look at the implications of passing a law on Health Care on teh political system Asking questions such as

What then are the potential political implications for the president, his party and minority Republicans if the year ends with the president hosting a big signing ceremony to herald a new era for the American health care system? A big win for the Democrats? Despair among Republicans? Not surprisingly, Democrats and Republicans have sharply different expectations for what may happen.

Democrats assume substantial political benefits, both for getting the job done and for changes that they believe the public will see as improvements in the kind of health care coverage they have. They believe the passage of a health care bill will stand with other landmark achievements that have come under Democratic presidents, such as Social Security and Medicare.

Chris Kofinis, a Democratic strategist, predicts that, at a minimum, there will be a huge, short-term benefit for the president and his party. "Big social problems create big political and policy challenges, but also huge political payoffs," he said.

he further argues that this would show the democrats as the party to get a job done and the republicans as a "party on the sidelines".

Foreign Affairs offers an insightful view on how the U.S. can manage and balance the dollar and thus prevent a new crisis

Rothkopf over at Fp is comparing Obama to Carter asking if he is perhaps a Jimmy II.

John western at Duck of Minerva is pitching in on the debate on Obama and his decisionmaking style. offering insights like:

couple of points: First, in the post-World War II period most presidential decisions on the use of force have been relatively rapid decisions in response to particular crises or triggering events. Circumstances often dictated the necessity of quick decisions, e.g., Truman on Korea in June, 1950; Eisenhower on Lebanon; Reagan on Grenada; Bush 41 on Kuwait, Clinton on Kosovo. The situation in Afghanistan is an entirely different type of case. The situation is deteriorating, but there is no immediate time pressure. Second, as a result, we should be comparing apples to apples and we have had a number of cases in which presidents have had some luxury of having time to weigh a change in strategy or resources. What is interesting about many of these cases is how quickly and casually various presidents have made decisions on troop escalation or changes in strategic objectives without thorough analysis or consideration of various counterfactuals. [...] The bottom line is that there is no set of exigent circumstances dictating a decision today or tomorrow in Afghanistan. Obama has tasked his advisers and their staffs to do a thorough review of the strategic objectives and then a review of the various approaches to meet those objectives. The White House also has been clear that this will not be an open ended process and that Obama will make a decision by the end of this month. Ultimately history will judge Obama more on the outcome of his policy decision than the process, but for those of us who study decision making processes, this is about as sound as it gets.

U.S. - Afghanistan:
Ben Pershing of the WP looks into the deepening divide of Capitol Hill on the debate on Afghnaistan's Strategy.

In the span of just a few hours Tuesday, the chairmen of the House and Senate appropriations committees -- both Democrats -- made markedly different public statements on what President Obama should do next and whether more troops should be sent to bolster the war effort, with Sen. Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) voicing support for a new counterinsurgency strategy and Rep. David Obey (Wis.) reiterating his doubts about the entire venture. The split matters, since an increase in troops for Afghanistan would likely require the Obama administration to ask Congress for more money, and Inouye and Obey would need to agree. [...] While acknowledging the high cost of sending more troops, Inouye said: "If, after further consultation and deliberation we decide we need 40,000 more troops or 50,000 more troops in Afghanistan, that's what we'll send but much more discussion has to take place before a final decision on troop levels can be made."

Obey, meanwhile, delivered a speech in Stevens Point, Wis., where he made clear that he does not believe the national will exists for a big troop buildup, nor does he believe the U.S. has reliable partners in this fight.

"When you have to work through two weak reeds like the Pakistan government and Afghan government, it severely limits what you can accomplish," Obey said, according to the Wausau Daily Herald (as was flagged by "The Cable" blog on ForeignPolicy.com).

While Foreign Affairs is taking a look at how to win hearts and minds in a country used to fighting between western forces and the Taliban.

The light footprint strategy, which called for less rather than more foreign intervention and was sanctioned by the United Nations and the West following the collapse of the Taliban, failed to take into account that a post-Taliban Afghanistan was a country without institutions, leaving a leadership vacuum that could only be filled with the cadre of leaders that had emerged from 30 years of war -- fighting men who ruled by the power of the gun.

That rule has returned: Afghanistan today looks a lot like the Afghanistan of 2004, only a little bit worse. It also resembles the pre-Taliban Afghanistan of 1995 and 1996, when venturing on just about any highway was a risk and visiting a government office required a pocketful of bribes. The only difference between then and now is that the Afghan factions are no longer firing at each other and killing civilians who get caught in the middle. That is now being done by the Taliban and the international forces.[...] When the Taliban were driven from power, Afghans from across the country wanted to be allies of the international community, happy to see the back of the wretched Taliban regime. Eight years on, most people, including the young man from Musa Qala, are fed up. They see their country heading for destruction, led by corrupt and conniving leaders enabled by an international community unable to figure out the good guys from the bad guys.

Not long ago in Kabul, an Afghan friend who has stayed in his homeland through the communists, the mujahideen, and the Taliban, and who was always certain of a better day, told me that his optimism had run out. "I want out," he said. "You always wondered at how I could always be so optimistic, and now it's gone."

On the Af-Pak Channel on FP, David Fidler weighs in with a look at the debate around the strategy on Afghanistan in this piece.


USA - Cuba

Miami herald reports a new development in U.S. Cuban relations While keeping travel restrictions in place. Cuba allowed State Departmetn officials to visit jailed U.S. Cubans on the island.

Havana's decision to allow the prison visits ``reflect the benefits that could accrue to both countries as a result of better communications and, conversely, how our interests are poorly served when we don't communicate,'' said Bob Pastor, the top Cuban expert in Jimmy Carter's administration.

The State Department confirmed Wednesday that acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bisa Williams visited with jailed dual U.S.-Cuban citizens there during her trip to Cuba last month to discuss a possible resumption of direct mail services between the two nations. No further details on the visits were available.

USA - Russia
The NYTimes is reporting on Clintons visit to Moscow with this piece on her speech before 1000 students at Moscow State University.

Russia, she said, could best fulfill its potential by protecting basic freedoms.

“That’s why attacks on journalists and human rights activists are such a great concern, because it is a threat to progress,” she said. “The more open Russia will become, the more Russia will contribute.”

As if to illustrate that point, Mrs. Clinton then traveled from Moscow to Kazan, the 1,000-year-old capital of Tatarstan, a Russian republic where Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics live together peacefully, with none of the violent separatism that afflicts places like Chechnya.

Af-Pak - or how I learned to ignore the obvious!

Haven't been blogging for a while, primarily because of finishing up my studies, exams and writing an MA thesis.

But here I was sitting once again listening to some of the comments on Afghanistan by Nagl and Bacevich on the Newshour and couldn't help but compare it to Obama's AfPak White Paper, and the various comments on Abu Muqawama on the subject.

There is something seriously missing. It's not even a full year since Musharraf stepped down and handed "control" of the government to Zardari and everybody seemingly believes that he is in CONTROL? There is something called History and sometimes it's useful thinking about it. If a country has spent 33 of its 62 years of existence under direct military rule and pretty much the rest - especially between 1988 and 1999 - under very obvious military tutelage how can one actually believe that the military returned to the barracks?

That they haven't was obvious pretty quick after the appointment of Zardari to President of Pakistan, by such small facts as the ISI chief last year being appointed by Chief of Army Staff Kayani and not the Prime Minister, to which he is responsible under the 1973 constitution.

As the new strategy regarding the ``Af-Pak'' War of U.S. President Obama rightly emphasizes any attempt at pacifying Afghanistan will have to incorporate Pakistan. Yet, the``White Paper of the Interagency Policy Group's Report on U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan'' discusses the problem of the Pakistani side of the ``Af-Pak'' War simply as a problem of governance, failing to acknowledge that Pakistan unlike Afghanistan HAS NOT been suffering from a 30 years long civil war, which left it with no political structures to build on, but rather boasts a complex, deeply engrained political structure, with the Army appearing as political and strategic nexus. Refusing to acknowledge the Army's complex interactions and its political and strategic interests will prove futile and only shatter the Af-Pak endeavor.

The military has been building up the Islamist factions, groups and parties to challenge the governments of Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto's PPP and Nawaz Sharif's PML(N) inthe 90's were the same ones that used the Presidential rule of Article 58 (2) b to oust the above mentioned Prime Ministers several times.

The officer corps of Pakistan itself recruited primarily from Punjab (60-70%) and from the lower middle class is supporting upper middle class ideas as use the perks to the military to personally enrich themselves and become landlords, factory owners, managers and so on. The military basically owns or is involved in half of Pakistan's economic enterprises.(compare Ayesha Siddiqa's "Military Inc.")

The same military used the Taliban to gain "strategic depth" vis a vis India. India and Afghanistan have been historically close, but the Taliban offered the Pakistani Military a chance to reverse that trend, and change the strategic situation from having to fight on the Afghan and Indian front, both of which are the two longest borders of Pakistan. Afghanistan and India were quick to renew their historical friendship after the defeat of the Taliban, bringing Pakistan back into its old position of being sandwiched between two unfriendly countries.

The strategy of Pakistan for the last two decades (arguably since 1988) has been high intensity nuclear warfare to deter India's conventional supremacy and on the other hand low intensity insurgency warfare in Kashmir and Afghanistan, thus training Kashmiri and Afghan insurgents to fight Pakistan's wars.

And let's be clear, the military's role has been such because of the United States preferential treatment of the military vis a vis the civilians and not just since the Soviet invasion. Ayub Khan, Zia ul Haq, Musharraf have all used the United States for gaining military aid over economic aid.

So, why are we still talking about supporting the Zardari government in establishing control and governance in the FATA, NWFP while avknowledging their limited control. Why is anyone surprised to see the military fail against the Taliban, the group they have created for strategic purposes against Afghanistan and India and on which they still rely.

The reason behind Zardari's lack of control in the FATA, NWFP and parts of Baluchistan is not because of the Taliban, but because of his weak position vis a vis the Parent Guardian military. Supporting him to challenge the Taliban directly will always involve the military (as paramilitary and Police are all too often working for the Army and not oposing them). So support for Zardari can only work through civilian channels. The public must begin opposing the imperatives of the military: which are nicely summed up by the above mentioned AM post:

1. All of Pakistan's internal problems come from Indian activities run out of Afghanistan.
2. Pakistan's present "democratic" rulers are useless and owe their positions to America.
3. The real story is that the U.S. has failed in Afghanistan
4. London and Washington have a hidden agenda in cosying up to India.
5. The US wants to invade and dismember Pakistan

So the U.S. and the West needs to do exactly the opposite of what is stated above:
1. show that internal problems are homemade
2. Showing the usefulness of democratic leaders (which is tough if you take into account that most of the development work so far has been done by the military)
3. Showing the economic use of a stable Afghanistan for Pakistan
4. Keeping India at bay, or better supporting Indian/ Pakistani Confidence Building Measures other than Sport. Best, begin addressing Kashmir!
5. Persuade that the U.S. has no interest in invading Pakistan (despite this being a very very very ridiculous and deadly idea)